Yes, I agree.
Despite my general incorrigible tendency to express negative, critical reactions, I do sympathize with any judge/trier of fact handling a case in which both sides are woefully unable or unwilling to present clear, reasonably coherent, sensible testimony and evidence.
It isn't just that the judge and audience feel as if they'd been dropped into the middle of a story that begs for background and explanation. Many, maybe even most, cases start with the plaintiff "inartfully" failing to begin at the beginning-- or even a beginning.
Fortunately, JM typically stops them early and gets them to backtrack. But this is much easier to accomplish if there's a more with-it litigant to turn to.
Here, it was fairly obvious that the well-meaning plaintiff deserved to be paid, and that the defendant was a bit loony. But they were both clueless.
BTW, I was intrigued enough to poke around just a little bit about the Porter Ranch catastrophe. I didn't find exactly what I hoped to find-- a state or local website advising affected residents of the requirements and responsibilities for returning to a contaminated home.
But I did find information about the toxic residue left by the escaped gas. And it suggested exactly what the plaintiff clumsily brought up-- it was indeed a hazmat environment, requiring full-scale "moon suit" remediation.
So, even though the plaintiff was completely in the right regarding the trivial lawsuit, her employees should never have gone to work in that house.
It's the equivalent of entering a property full of asbestos, and deciding to dust and vacuum to make the place look more presentable.
This sketchy bit of background alone shows that the defendant's wifty belief that she only had to have someone "wipe down the walls and windows" was nonsensical. This is not a job for the Merry Maids.
I have no idea how professional hazmat remediators deal with properties that have serious structural/housekeeping issues-- but I suspect that they don't screw around with trying to clean/rehab contaminated surfaces, carpets, etc. that are already damaged, filthy, ruined, or in need of non-hazmat deep cleaning or repair.
They would probably just rip out and bag every damaged surface and remove trash, furnishings, etc., leaving the property owner to rebuild and renovate whatever's left. Sounds pricey.
I'm really not as obsessed with this case as it seems, but I would be interested to know what became of the pitiful defendant and her haunted house.
reply
share