Thousands of verified Experts are ready to answer your specific questions 24/7.
Satisfaction is guaranteed and you pay your Expert only if you are satisfied.
Just type your detailed question and click "Get an Answer."
In minutes you'll get a response from an Expert. You can always ask follow-up questions.
Happy with your answer? Just click "Accept" to pay your Expert.
pi lawsuit : injury to an independent contractor for carbon monoxide and nitricoxide/sulfide poisoning dual injury with substantial cognitive and physical damage. secondary lawsuit against the deep pockets landlords. primary defendent declared bankruptcy- 90 days coming by feb 28, landlord has a clause that primary defendent (their tenant-my offender) has to pay rest of his life any monies paid for a liability (me- injured party) any time he comes out of bankruptcy. primary def could never come out of bankruptcy or has to keep himself in bankru if the settlement is high or if goes to trial. landlords contract with tenant condones in writing allowance of race cars to be maintained in a building not suitable for cars and against code for maintanence. my desk was put out among the race cars to save money rather than build or move to a bigger space. do we have a legitimate case against the landlords because of contract. landlords say they are not liable b/c of a vent system no matter how b
State/Country relating to Question: California
Who put your desk out in the space where the race cars were? Why would the landlord's contract with the tenant have any impact on you?
the tenant put me out there - he is primary in my lawsuit. we have expert drs, mri evidence, cognitive damage proof, ex employee favorable testimony, and my replacement employee got sick as well. however defendant getting out of suit by bankruptcy. (he was selling UNINSURED consignment exotic and race cars so unable to pursue insurance) secondary defendant is heavily insured they make 8-9 bill a year. they were initially named as somewhat responsible. now we are pursuing them 100 percent without dropping primary - my attorney is questionable for the past 3 months. my primary def has ALOT at stake because he is also an atty. his car business was a side business. doctored photos have now come into play and my atty doesnt want to ruin him. been protecting him for 3 months. my atty says we no longer have a case against landlords because the venting system no matter how mickey mouse may have always been there. (we knew all along it was there and inadequate) we were supposed to be using the strategy of the contract that the landlords being experts in commerical leases should not rent to a builidng not set up for car maintenance which they condoned in writing by requiring the tenant to( first) supply 1 mil if the cars were only stored. and (second) requiring 2 mil ins if the cars were to be started. (against building code) doesnt that secure me a case against the landlords. they say because there was a venting system however inadequate they are not liable? what about the contract..or how can i keep them in the liability responsibility?so is it true that even though my case so superior and strong but can fold just based on primary s bankruptcy and lack of proof of landlords responsibility? primary has a lot at stake if landlord proceeds they will pull in car owners and then priXXXXX XXXXXes of fake cert of ins will be exposed in wealthy community so he has paid off or scared off my prev attorneys. now this one for 3 months has been pressuring me to drop him or protect him. i dont mean to be paranoid but i am trying to see why now we have to drop the landlords which only protects him. the landlords if they subpoena me will also find out about the fed Fraud right before i was injured (i am the accountant) he also provided photoshop doctored photos but my atty doesnt want to ruin him. sorry if that is redundent. complicated case, mj
You should not voluntarily drop anybody from the lawsuit. Also if you think your attorney is trying to protect the other side, you need to have a talk to him about his professional responsibility. If he is not going to represent your interest you can file a complaint with the Bar Association. It would seem to be a jury question of whether the Landlord knew and tolerated an unlawful use in the building and should be held liable for his knowing participation in the unlawful acts.
Just because there was a venting system does not mean the place was suitable to handle auto exhaust fumes. The fact that the insurance requirement went up one could argue reflected the increased danger inherent in the cars being operated in the enclosed space and the fact that such operation violated the building code was proof of the landlord's negligence if not complicity.
If this answer is responsive to your question, please accept it. That is how we are compensated. I would also be appreciated if you provided feed back on your view of the answer. Finally, if the answer was especially helpful you can provide a bonus. If I can be of further assistance or you have other questions in the future you can ask for me and reach me at this site.
This communication is not intended as legal advice. A local attorney should always be consulted for legal advice. No client/attorney relationship is intended or created by this communication.
Attorney
30 years experience corporate, litigation, international