Cabinet Comes Off Wall - Comes Crashing Down

[cabinetman]

That's the last thing you want to hear, and especially if you are in business and have installed cabinets. What I'm talking about is product liability. For the tradesman. product liability is paralleled with negligence. I can remember my insurance agent explaining all the gory details of how a customer could wind up owning my business.

Here's a for instance. Lets say I installed a cabinet correctly. The customer decides to pull it off the wall and claim I was negligent in the way it was installed. He/she would have to first figure out how to do that and still make it look like it fell on it's own. Or, the question arises, did it fall with normal use. It's still up to the plaintiff to prove his case. This is considering the customer has this agenda. So, it can go to a jury and let them decide.

I installed a wall system for an elderly woman (in her late 70's). It was two tall units with a desk and kneehole in the middle. Above the desk was a two door cabinet. About a week after the installation, she called and said one of the doors above the desk was ready to fall off, and she was afraid it would hit her in the head. I pack up tools and supplies and trek over. She was right. One of the doors was loose and ready to fall. So, in evaluating the situation, I asked her when she is sitting there and goes to get up, does she grab the handle on that door to help herself up? She said yes. Well, I fixed the door and told her that those doors are not designed for that purpose.

When I think in retrospect of that situation, with the "sue happy" society out there, I'm sure there are parameters of use that would be on my side if she got hurt. Does one have to think far enough ahead to try to get waivers signed when writing up the job? But still, it would cost me dearly to defend it. In Florida, you don't need a "Certificate of Competency" to build cabinets, just to install them. The "CC" is really a joke. It is a carpenters test. It still doesn't mean a person knows how to install. As far as product liability, anything and everything about a custom product has to be considered before delivery and/or installation. Call it quality control, or whatever, but anything that is unsafe or dangerous or hazardous has to be determined. Like building infant and toddler furniture, and designing it with safety in mind is paramount.

Other than swinging from doors, I exert as much force as possible on installed goods just to check and for my own satisfaction. I don't want any doubts when I leave a jobsite. Besides, the customer has placed a trust in the fact that everything was done correctly.

The "Certified Mail" I don't want to see is the one that starts out "This firm represents ........."



"I'M NEVER WRONG - BUT I'M NOT ALWAYS RIGHT"

[final_t]

You should have made the door handle so that it would come off if pulled in a downwards fashion. That would stop her from doing that.
But also, posting in a public forum (here) documenting that she did that and you told her not to, might actually help in the future if she or her family decides to sue you.

[Warren]

In this society you can be sued for nearly anything. And, juries will award for practically anything. Therefore, keep your insurance up to date. A high percentage of people are raised to detest insurence companies. They don't look at the money as their money and they love to give it away, deservedly or not.

A high percentage of people also believe that people, particularly themselves, should never be held accountable for their actions or choices. Personal injury attorneys exploit this attitude to the fullest. It's never the smoker's fault. It's never the person who handled the gun ineptly who bears the fault. It's never the saw operator's fault. It's almost always the fault of whomever has the deepest pockets and only rarely does plaintiff's negligence enter into the equation.

All you can do is buy the best coverage you can afford, or keep your net worth as low that an attorney would not think you worth the effort of suing and look else where gas money for the yacht.

[MilDoc]

... So, it can go to a jury and let them decide.

The American Justice (so-called) System depends on a "jury of your peers." This was fine in the 1500's when most people were uneducated peasants. Now it's little more than a farce. A jury of your peers would be other craftsmen, able to evaluate the safety of your installation (and assuming the client doesn't lie). Never happen. As a doctor a jury of my peers would be doctors, not retired folks with time to kill who write letters to General Hospital asking medical advice. That never happens either. Thus, juries award millions out of sympathy and ignorance.

I asked her when she is sitting there and goes to get up, does she grab the handle on that door to help herself up? She said yes. Well, I fixed the door and told her that those doors are not designed for that purpose.

Just like all the warning labels on everything I buy anymore, all aimed at the morons in the world, I suggest you label all future doors:

"This is a door.
It is not a support.
Open it as a door.
Do not pull on it in any other way.
Doing so could cause injury.
You could get hurt!"

[bmyers]

Another solution could have been to install a handle on the cabinet she could raise herself up on so that she didn't have to use the door and maybe a few more screws in studs for the cabinet.

This sort of "custom cabinet" work might be a good niche market some one...

but that's just me...

Bill

[Jeffrey Schronce]

The case of the elderly woman would be easily defended as the common person knows the purpose of a cabinet door. I would not sweat this one. As another poster notes, documenting the warning as you have is an excellent idea, as you were made aware of the condition. Once the old lady made you aware of her intended use, then you began to have the duty to protect ie tell her not to do it or either build it strong enough to hang off of.

In the case of the person pulling the cabinet off the wall, are you proposing the person would also intentionally inflict harm on themselves or attribute a pr-existing condition to the cabinet fall? That would be incredibly bizzare. The first thing that would occur is that your Commercial Package Policy (CPP) or Business Owner Policy (BOP) would immediate hire a structural engineer to investigate the claim. The cause would likely be found.

It sounds like you do a great job and I think that your liability exposures are incredibly minimal. More likely, contractors are faced with customers who have cabinets that are coming apart due to settling, excessive wear and tear, delamination due to water exposure, etc.

[MilDoc]

The case of the elderly woman would be easily defended as the common person knows the purpose of a cabinet door.

Unless the person lies, saying it fell on its own. To do otherwise in court or to a lawyer would be admitting fault, and Dee Dee Dee I'm an idiot. But that never happens in court ... where everyone tells the truth.

[Pappy]

In the late 70's I came up with designs for desks for both my boys. They were seen as I was building them in the base hobby shop and I ended up selling several of each design. probaly sill could, but the liability involved and lack of parental control keeps me from trying.

[dlminehart]

I agree that this jury of peers is pretty woeful. I believe that in France the jurors are professionals, rather than citizens able to take off work in exchange for $5/day compensation. Wonder exactly how that system works: how they're chosen, compensated, scrutinized for impartiality, etc.?

[os1kne]

About a month ago, I had to testify as a fact witness in a case involving a Dr. that was a client of mine several years ago. The case was tried in Federal District Court. Seeing first hand how the future of a person can be determined by 12 random people (not peers) that likely know very little about the subject matter is very sobering.

I definitely don't want to ever end up as a defendant in a trial, you just don't know what might happen - even if you appear to have a good case to most reasonable people.

[jseklund]

A few years back I was renting a piece of property that shared a driveway with another house, on the same land, owned by the same landlord. The landlord put a real scumbag in the other house, and he was constantly doing things to harrass us, which I don't need to get into here. Anyway, long story short, he made up a story that was OBVIOUSLY not true. He smacked my car as I drove by with his hands- as hard as he could- and then called the cops and told them I tried to run him over. When I returned to explain to the cops, I wound up creating more problems for myself. Since, I have read a lot of books on legal reasoning- it's interesting- and I have come to realize that if I hadn't cooperated with the police, just said, "Come get me", I probably would have been fine. The reasoning was that my admitting that there was an incident (him hitting my car with his hands), and explaining what happened gave them the evidence they needed to prosecute. They KNEW there was AN INCIDENT. They had two different stories, it was up to the court system to decide which story was real. Nice huh?

Anyway, I had a great attorney (not your normal scumbag lawyer), who highly recommended against a jury. He said I should let the judge decide. So, I waived the right for a jury. His reasoning, which I agree on, is that you never know what you are going to get with a jury. He has seen cases go sour that he thought were a lock because of juries. Even though all of the evidence was on my side, I may have gotten a jury full of 12 unemployed wellfare recipients who were just like the guy making up the story, and I'd be screwed. Obviously, my attorney would have methods to try to minimize that factor, but you get the point.

That being the case:

The case of the elderly woman would be easily defended as the common person knows the purpose of a cabinet door.

I wouldn't be so sure of this. It may just get spun as, "You are admitting that you KNEW there was an issue." Then it goes to court to let the court decide whether or not the issue was hers or yours, and the evidence is in your favor- but you have to spend a fortune to defend yourself.

Scary world.

[MilDoc]

After my very extensive experience testifying in way too many trials, I can say "beyond any reasonable doubt" that most of the defense attorneys were incompetent, didn't bother with much preparation, and were often at a loss as to what to ask. I had great respect for only 5-6 of the hundreds I faced.

As for judges, most are pompous a**** that think "judge" means "God." I had great respect for 4 out of about 15.

And, "jury of your peers," as I said, is a complete joke. Would any of you non-engineers feel competent on a jury re: why a bridge collapsed?

And, "expert witnesses" that can't be bought are few also.

Best advice a well respected defense attorney told me: if arrested, SHUT UP! Say nothing. Give "name, rank, and serial number, and call your lawyer."

[Jeffrey Schronce]

After my very extensive experience testifying in way too many trials, I can say "beyond any reasonable doubt" that most of the defense attorneys were incompetent, didn't bother with much preparation, and were often at a loss as to what to ask. I had great respect for only 5-6 of the hundreds I faced.

As for judges, most are pompous a**** that think "judge" means "God." I had great respect for 4 out of about 15.

And, "jury of your peers," as I said, is a complete joke. Would any of you non-engineers feel competent on a jury re: why a bridge collapsed?

And, "expert witnesses" that can't be bought are few also.

Best advice a well respected defense attorney told me: if arrested, SHUT UP! Say nothing. Give "name, rank, and serial number, and call your lawyer."

Excellent points, each and every one. I have to agree completely. I have worked with many, many defense attorneys that just don't have their heart in it. Let's face it, most defense attorneys will make the exact same amount of money regardless of whether they win or lose. Plantiffs attorneys are driven by the fact that they will be rarely paid unless they win. Money is a big motivator.

I have heard judges say that there is no such thing as the marriage penalty when it comes to federal taxation. I have witnessed judges modifying jury awards, upward, based upon their own personal feelings in the matter. Talk about a God complex!

Jury of peers? Try jury of people who couldn't get out of serving. That's a highly motivated group! LOL!

Expert witnesses are pretty much full of it as well. I know that for a fact, since I frequently serve as an expert witness in insurance policy coverage interpretation, underwriting purposes, unfair claims practices, etc. I face so many so called experts that have no more credentials than maybe an insurance license that a monkey can obtain. The fun part is absolutely tearing them apart in court or mediation. Fun, fun, fun.

[MilDoc]

Legal defintion of "Expert Witness": a witness who has knowledge not normally possessed by the average person concerning the topic that he is to testify about, and is allowed to offer an opinion based on expertise.

Lay Witness: any witness who does not testify as an expert witness, and can not offer an opinion.

So, anyone with a license, or experience (even 1 month) is an "expert" if accepted by the court.

In too many case "junk science" prevails.

[Warren]

I was a court accepted expert in motor-vehicle accident reconstruction. The process varied, but the proscecutor had to build a foundation for my expertise through lengthly examination, which was then subject to lengthly cross-examination. After the first time, prosecutors and defense attorneys usually stipulated as to my expertise. Sometimes a good defense attorney usually required the prosecutor to build a foundation each case unless it was in front of a judge I had testified in front of previously. Then the judge would usually put an end to the show and insist that they both accept me and get on with the case. Judges do get bored easily.

After I retired I only performed for the State and never for the defense. The State and city had paid big bucks over the years to educate me and I thought it unfair to turn against them. Besides, if the A**hole wasn't guilty my guys wouldn't have charged him.

Civil suits were a different matter, then I went with the highest bidder. I love this country!!!!