Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    This case has it all, drugs, sex and rock and roll... your opinion will be worth $5 to the Schiff Liver foundation so please tell me what ya ll think and have
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This case has it all, drugs, sex and rock and roll... your opinion will be
      worth $5 to the Schiff Liver foundation so please tell me what ya'll think and
      have fun.
      thanks in advance

      Todd Terry and the Estate of Chad Bello Ethel & Fred
      Ricardo ("landlords")
      on behalf of Chad Bell´s two 13 year Casualty r us
      Ins. (Ins. Co.)
      old children namely Dick and Jane.
      Plaintiff claims:
      1. Landlords,Ethel & Fred Ricardo , failed to remove a 30 year old
      malfunctioning built in air conditioner and attached power cord in the living
      room wall.
      2. Casualty r us Ins. failed to preserve the fire scene and as a
      result thereof, the landlord, Fred, threw away the couch and remains of ½ the
      power cord.
      FACTS according to plainftiff
      On 4/10/99, Terry and Chad leased ½ of a duplex from landlords. Terry and
      her 1 year old son, Sandy moved in with Chad . Later, Terry & Chad had a son
      named Moe who was born in June 2000. Landlords were responsible for maintaining
      the electrical, heating and air conditioning in good repair. Fred is an
      electrical engineer. He spent most of his adult life working with lighting
      fixtures and power cords and is familiar with electrical wirings in homes.
      Plaintiffs were not allowed to make any alterations or repairs.

      On 5/1/00, Terry informed Fred that the air conditioning unit was
      malfunctioning. Fred inspected it and determined that it was too old to fix.
      Fred installed a new heating and air conditioning unit but did not remove the
      built-in air conditioner and attached power cord. Terry kept the air
      conditioner plugged in to keep Sandy from sticking his finger and other objects in
      the sockets.
      On 11/1/00, Terry came home from work, ate dinner, put Sandy to bed and laid
      down in her bedroom to rest. Moe was in a car seat next to the couch in the
      living room with Chad who was asleep on the couch. Terry woke up and saw that
      living room was on fire. Terry attempted to get to Sandy's bedroom but was
      overcome by smoke. She escapes through the window to get help to save Sandy.
      Chad and Moe burned to death in the living room.
      Sandy died 6 days later from smoke inhalation after fire dept rescued him.
      Terry survived after 5 days in the hospital from smoke inhalation injuries.
      Terry seeks damages for loss care, love and affection of her 2 children. If she
      is awarded damages, she intends to give significant portion to the burn
      foundation for children. Chad's estate seeks damages on behalf of Dick and Janefor
      the loss of their father. Dick and Jane are learning impaired and have
      suffered emotionally due to the loss of their father´s guidance and support.
      Chad worked for minimum wage at a Salvation Army store. His kids came to
      visit him on weekends and Jane was about to move in with Terry and Chad when the
      fire occurred.
      Terry has been convicted of 2 felonies (1994 & 1998) for forgery due to her
      cocaine addiction. While pregnant with Moe, she used cocaine. Terry has been
      drug free for 18 months. Previously she gave up her 3 children for adoption
      due to her addiction problem. She stays in monthly contact with each of them.
      Terry is Caucasian and Chad is Afro-American. Both Terry and chadwere
      Plaintiffs´ expert fire investigator Jones has indicated that the fire
      started from an electrical event behind the couch. He cannot say how it started
      because Casualty r us Ins. failed to preserve the couch and ½ of the power cord
      from the air conditioner. He concluded that it could not have started from a
      cigarette because Chad only had 2% carbon monoxide in his blood despite being
      a smoker; whereas Sandy had a carbon monoxide level of 60 and Terry´s level
      was 27. Jones´ opinions are supported by Dr. Igor who concluded that chad and
      Sandy burnt to death from a fast developing fire which occurred within 2-4
      minutes of ignition. Expert Jones was able to eliminate cigarette smoking and
      other causes of the fire because of the fire retardant character of the carpet.
      Previous to plaintiffs moving in, the landlord installed a smoke detector in
      a hallway adjacent to the kitchen. Whenever Terry and chad cooked, the alarm
      would go off so Chad disengage the smoke detector. Chad did not request the
      landlord to move the smoke detector. Because of the rapid development of the
      fire, a smoke detector would not have saved Chad or Sandy but may have given
      enough warning for Terry to save Moe.

      Plaintiffs claim that insurance fire investigator Mr Moose failed to secure
      the premises and the evidence therein. As a result, plaintiffs´ expert Jones
      cannot examine the remains of the couch and missing ½ of the power cord for
      evidence of arcing. Ins. Co. denies that it failed to secure scene.
      Defendants´ expert Moore speculated that Terry and Chad caused the fire
      because they were using illegal drugs. Police and fire dept investigators
      determined that arson was not the cause of the fire nor was illegal paraphernalia
      found. Moose also speculated that cigarette smoking or other electrical source
      may have started the fire, but these theories are not supported by medical or
      physical evidence found.
      Moose concluded that the fire started in the living room, but did not know
      where it started. Moose secured a few items that later proved not to be the
      cause of the fire such as space heater and gas cans.
      The landlord Fred claims he got permission from defendant Casualty r us Ins.
      to throw away the couch and debris from the fire scene. Defendant Casualty
      r us has no record of him seeking permission.
      Defendants claim Plaintiffs should receive nothing because of their own
      fault. Defendants further claim that Plaintiffs have not proved liability or

      so what do you think about this?
      Percentage of fault of fault should equal 100%
      Plaintiff Terry ____________%
      Plaintiff Estate of Chad ____________%
      Defendant Fred and Ethel ____________%
      Defendant Casualty r us Ins ____________%
      TOTAL 100 %
      If you find that Terry or Chad Bell were more than 50% at fault, then they
      shall receive no damages
      The amount of damages Terry without regard to fault
      The amount of damage to Estate of Chad without regard to fault $___________
      The amount of damages X percentage of fault assessed against Fred and ethel
      and Casualty r us Ins.
      Percentage of fault of Ethel and /Fred _______%
      + percentage of fault of Casualty r us Ins. ________%
      totaling __________%
      Total percentage of fault of both defendants ______________% x Terry's damages
      $___________________ = net damages to Terry
      Total percentage of fault of both defendants ______________% x Estate of chad
      damages $___________________ = net damages to Estate of Chad

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.