首页 / 法律问答 / 你不赔我篱笆的损失?行,那就赔我百倍的庄稼损失!

你不赔我篱笆的损失?行,那就赔我百倍的庄稼损失!

商业律师 5 回答
这事儿不是我干的,是我妹夫的“以其人之道还治其人之身”。有些细节可能不太准,但大体上是真的。 我妹夫在加州种牛油果。几年前,他农场的一部分被野火烧了,一开始他以为就是普通的火灾。但烟散了之后,发现是强风刮倒电线,电线落在他家栅栏上,把栅栏点着了。 反正他本来也想换换别的作物,就打算重修栅栏,重新种植,然后就算了。所以他就给电力公司打电话,说电线是他们家的,烧了他家栅栏,让他赔个一万美金修栅栏。结果电力公司死不认账,说要是不满意就告他们去。 电力公司不知道的是,我妹夫的老婆,也就是我妹妹,是加州一家大型电力公司的法律顾问,专门处理这种案子的。她一开始还担心这家电力公司是她公司的子公司,那样的话利益冲突就大了。毕竟,哪个公司的法务也不想自己老公告自己公司吧?结果查了一下,发现这家公司跟她没关系,那她就没啥顾忌了。 虽然我妹妹不能直接代理她老公,毕竟她平时都是帮电力公司打官司的,但她可以教他怎么打赢官司,还帮他找了个靠谱的律师,专打这种案子。电力公司不知道他们面对的是什么,还想拖着不和解,想让我妹夫知难而退。 我妹夫听了我妹妹的,觉得胜算很大,就真去告了。结果加州对农业损失非常重视,法院自己也做了调查,估算损失总额大约是33.5万美元,是他一开始要价的33倍多!而且加州法律规定,如果农业受到影响,可以判三倍赔偿,所以电力公司现在要赔一百多万美元,而不是当初的一万美金了。 事后,我妹夫跟我说,他当时要是能拿到一万美金就满足了,估计要卖十年牛油果才能挣到一百万。但电力公司非要上法庭,这下好了。 **更新:** 就像我之前说的,有些细节我记错了。我昨晚和我妹妹聊了聊,重新回忆了一下。我不想改原文了,就列个清单吧: * 这事儿发生在十年前左右。 * 我妹夫一开始要价6万美金,不是1万。 * 他们一开始以为电线是电力公司的(可能是我妹妹的公司),后来发现是采石场私有的,所以告的是采石场。 * 采石场没有上诉,他们最终和解了,赔了一百多万美金,所以上诉也没戏。 不过,总的来说,故事是真的: * 我妹夫一开始只想和解,要几万美金,但对方不同意。 * 他在我妹妹的帮助下请了律师。我妹妹知道他肯定赢,因为她作为电力公司的辩护律师,处理过太多这种案子了。 * 请了律师后,采石场不得不赔了一百多万美金,而不是当初几万美金就能解决的。 还有一些常见的误解,完全是错的: * 有人说这是天灾,谁都不该赔偿,我妹夫就应该认倒霉。但他没必要认倒霉,因为电线的所有者有责任确保电线不会对周围的基础设施造成损害。他们有责任把电线放在安全的位置,远离易燃物。不这样做就是疏忽。他起诉的不是天灾,而是电线引发火灾,而且是可以预防的,只要遵守相关的建筑规范就行。 * 还有人说律师拿走大部分,上诉耗尽所有,我妹夫一分钱也拿不到。但事实是,他们选择了仲裁和解,所以没法上诉。他拿到了大部分赔偿金,用来还了农场的贷款,修复了火灾造成的损失,剩下的钱也用来还房贷了。
回答次数 (5)
C
CrimsonFire2
# 5
I had a similar situation with our town council, although considerably less money,. A tree fell on our fence and wrecked it, I asked for 1/2 the repair cost, they said no, act of God and the like. I showed that the tree had termites and that they failed in their duty of care. Ended up they had to pay the full repair price.
A
Auranian2
# 4
Honestly, this is one of those situations where it is better to do what your BIL did (take it to court and follow through with his wife's advice). Maybe that utility company will learn from their grave mistake and not treat others like this - at the very least I bet there are new policies/procedures for handling this type of situation.
D
Donna
# 3
My family is fighting with a similar case on fire damage in California that burned a big chunk of our orchard and farm equipment.

It is really dumb, but apparently PG&E has admittedly fault repeatedly and said going into multiple arbitrations they are not contesting that they are at fault for the fire, but then if you proceed from mediation to trial they decide they are contesting every single of the thousands of cases against them for the exact same fire they caused.
圣牧士
# 2
i am a lawyer, and I could tell stories of times where I had a good deal worked out for my client- advised them to take it, but they wanted their day in court.... and it did not go well for them. Any good lawyer will ave a good idea of the chances you have at winning your case, and the potential outcomes, if they tell you that it is a good deal- they have done the calculations. Clearly in this case, one lawyer knew the value of their case, and another was way off (of some exec had no freaking clue and kept pushing).

Note- it does not mean that I do better or worse in cases i advise settling, I am a public interest lawyer where 50% of my cases are simply unwinnable and i get a settlement that is better than losing on 95% of them, and about a quarter are rejected by my client even after I tell them that they have no legal defense.
L
Lee
# 1
Super similar story near me. A farmer had a field bordered by the railroad and there was a drainage culvert that kept water off the field that ran underneath the rail. One year we had heavy rains and the field didn't drain like it was supposed to. Water stood in the field long enough that his crops drowned. After some investigating the farmer learned that the culvert had become plugged due to a cave in underneath the rail. He went to the railroad and told them about the collapse in their culvert and just asked them to fix it. They said no and told him he would just have to sue them for loss of crops whenever it flooded. He took the matter to his landlord (who owned the field) who was also the DA for the town. They sued and the railroad apparently never even showed up. He was awarded damages totaling the whole field (only about 20% of the field was lost) and ordered the railroad to fix the culvert anyways. They drug their feet again and the court fined them every day they didn't with the payout being split by the farmer and the landlord. After nearly a year of this, the railroad finally replaced the culvert. The farmer likes to joke that he made more off the culvert being plugged than he could've with it being clear.
北美法律通