Diaz vs Pappas – Decision

This case involves the legal theory of “due care” and whether the accident was “foreseeable” by a reasonable person.

It seemed to me that the facts described by the parties made the event foreseeable.

Mr. Diaz was parked legally in front of the defendant’s garage. The curb lacked a curb cut. A cart operator had to maneuver his unwieldy pretzel cart out of the door, onto the pavement and then onto the street, to be hitched to a waiting vehicle or placed on a waiting truck or pushed up the street. There was no warning about this activity.

Although there was no direct proof as to exactly what had occurred, it seemed to me that it was an “accident waiting to happen”.

I said that in my opinion a fair solution would be for Mr. Diaz to consider reducing his damage demand and for Mr. Pappas to fairly settle the case directly with him.

After some discussion between the parties, they agreed to settle the case for $250.

Do you agree?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInPrintShare

2 thoughts on “Diaz vs Pappas – Decision

  1. I might’ve cut the guy a bit more, say half, 375-but it doesn’t seem there are any hard-core reliable witness statements here, so I agree he shouldn’t get the full boat…er, pretzel cart.

  2. I disagree with your decision. I feel the owner of the cart should also be responsible. Mr. Pappas the owner of the garage should have insurance. He could submit the claim to his insurance company. Mr Pappas in turn should fairly settle the case with the cart owner.

    Since Mr. Diaz had a receipt for repair of the damage to his car and he was parked legally he should not have to pay any part of the expense. He should have been awarded the $750.

Leave a Reply

Email is not required to leave a comment. Subscribe below to follow the discussion of this post.

Please answer the math question. *