Image courtesy of stockimages / freedigitalphotos.net

Premises liability mediators often encounter some strange cases that show the extent to which the threat of ‘liability’ can threaten basic common sense. Take, for example, the recent story about Sergeant William Bolt and his wife Lily, who lives in the town of Central, South Carolina at The Groves apartment complex.

While on leave for the holidays, Sergeant Bolt, who is not on the apartment lease, stays at his wife’s apartment while spending time with her and their newborn daughter. However, recently, the couple came under fire by the landlord, who insisted that if Bolt stays beyond the 7-day visitor limit (as per the lease), his wife is violating the terms of her lease.

“I’m stationed in Missouri and we haven’t seen each other in six months,” says Bolt. “What’s the problem with me staying and visiting with my wife?” The landlord of The Groves insists, however, that the rule applies to every resident, regardless of specific circumstances. Although he refuses to go on record with local media outlets with his full name, he states that the rules of the lease must be followed to the strictest letter since the resident signed it. The only option he is giving the couple is for Bolt to leave the premises or for their rent to be doubled.

According to Bolt, the landlord doesn’t care that the couple is married with a newborn, nor does he care that Bolt is in the military. After taking the case to a local attorney for consultation, the Bolts stated that the attorney assured them that the landlord’s case will likely not stand up in court for several reasons: first, the couple is legal spouses; second, the portion of the lease relating to visitors staying beyond 7 days is poorly worded.

This is an excellent example of a case relating to premises liability concerns (on the landlord’s part) that simply doesn’t hold water in court or show simple common sense in application of premises liability law. In fact, the couple plans to take the case to a mediator soon in order to resolve the dispute. Hopefully, mediation will help this misguided landlord see the error of a poorly written contract.

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici / freedigitalphotos.net

Car accident mediation is a voluntary process that provides a legal remedy for settlement of car accident claims.  Completely confidential, car accident mediation allows the parties involved in a car accident claim to settle outside of court and avoid the high costs (both in time and money) of a courtroom trial.   The process is voluntary and both parties involved in the mediation process are able to take the case to court at a later date if mediation doesn’t offer an acceptable resolution.

As an alternative dispute resolution process, car accident mediation is facilitated by a neutral, third-party mediator who will look over the details provided by both parties before the mediation process begins.  After each side provides its brief, including the cost of damages incurred and demands for settlement (if any), both parties will discuss the details related to the incident.  The accident mediator will facilitate this discussion and help both parties based on his or her knowledge of state and federal laws.

When preparing for car accident mediation, keep in mind that you will need evidence relating to the accident.  This can include copies of police reports and insurance policies.  While having your own lawyer representing you in car accident mediation is not required, it is important to remember that the insurance company will likely have their own attorney present if an insurance company is involved in the claim.

The actual car accident mediation process will likely take place in a room where all parties meet together to discuss the details of the claim.  Each party will give an opening statement that includes details related to their “side” of the dispute.  After all statements have been heard, the parties will then work on a legal settlement jointly.  The accident mediator remains neutral throughout the entire process, which means that he or she will not make settlement decisions for the parties, nor will he or she decide who is “right” and who is “wrong.”