If you have been involved in an accident in which you have sustained personal injury, it can be a very frustrating and traumatic experience. In addition to physical injuries, an accident can also lead to financial problems for the victim because of expenses involved in medical treatment, property damage and loss of earnings. It can be frustrating and difficult to deal with insurance companies, police, investigators, body shops and hospital bill collectors, all while trying to recover from painful injuries.  Fortunately, due to the universal use of contingency fee agreements, victims of someone else’s carelessness do not need to spend a single penny to retain a competent personal injury attorney, such as Larry M. Pollack Esq. Similarly, victims of workplace injuries need not advance a single penny to retain a competent workers compensation attorney, such as Larry M. Pollack Esq., because such fees are set at the end of the case by the workers compensation judge, and are paid solely out of the money recovered from the workers compensation insurance carrier.

At the Law Offices of New Jersey Personal Injury Attorney Larry Pollack, we understand your situation and we can help. Although Larry M. Pollack Esq. is highly experienced, you pay us only when we win/settle and recover for you. This is referred to as a “contingency fee” in legal parlance.  Contingency fees are strictly regulated in New Jersey. In New Jersey, personal injury attorneys are allowed to charge a one-third commission on the first $500,000 recovered for adults, and 25% of the first $500,000 recovered for minors (fees above $500,000 are covered by a scale set by the NJ Supreme Court’s Rules).

The contingency fee system is an important and ancient bulwark of America’s legal system, because without it, only the wealthy would have the means to hire an attorney to seek compensation for their personal injuries. Without the contingency fee system, only the wealthy would have the means to bear the cost and risk of litigation to obtain legal redress for injuries caused by the negligence of others.  Unlike large, powerful insurance companies, who keep defense firms on a regular retainer or have their own in-house lawyers working for them around the clock as “house counsel,” few ordinary individuals could afford the thousands of dollars that would otherwise be needed, to retain an attorney and pay him by the hour, and to pay the costs of investigating and litigating a case, if the contingency fee system did not exist. 

There is therefore no reason whatsoever to delay in hiring an attorney; in fact, delay in hiring an attorney can cause irreparable damage to your claim.  Should you lose your case or we are unable to obtain any compensation for you, you owe us nothing. We guarantee that you do not need to pay us anything till you receive your compensation. You do not need to worry about paying us by the hour and therefore there is no financial burden on you for making the injury claim. Assuming we take your case, we will advance the money that is required to provide the best possible legal representation until we get succeed in obtaining compensation for you. Furthermore, in America, in contrast to parts of Europe, if you lose your case, you do not owe anything to your adversary, either. 

It is important to note that the Law Office of Larry M. Pollack
Esq. does not charge any consultation fees in personal injury or workers compensation cases, and since there is no obligation to retain us after a free consultation, there is no reason to delay contacting us.  And, if you already have an attorney but are so dissatisfied with that attorney’s performance you wish to change attorneys, be advised that under New Jersey law, a client may always change attorneys, with or without cause.  Even if a client changes attorneys numerous times, the maximum total attorney fee always remains one-third (for cases under $500,000); the one-third is split between the current and previous attorneys, usually based on the relative contribution of the previous attorneys.  If you have an existing case with an attorney but feel you may now need to change attorneys, you may feel free to telephone Larry M. Pollack Esq. to discuss the situation directly, in complete confidence.

Since our attorney fees are totally dependent on winning/settling the case and the amount of settlement, you are assured that we will aggressively pursue the maximum amount we can obtain for you. Larry M. Pollack has many years of experience as well as a history of successful settlements in personal injury and workers compensation cases throughout the State of New Jersey.

Please contact NJ personal injury attorney Larry Pollack to discuss representation in a contingency fee arrangement.

Today’s Post revisits the topic of negligent infliction of emotional distress, an area rich in bizarre and humorous published court cases, such as–

KAY CORSO v. CRAWFORD DOG AND CAT HOSPITAL

415 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1979):

Seymour Friedman, J.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On or about January 28, 1978, the plaintiff brought her 15-year-old poodle into the defendant’s premises for treatment. After examining the dog, the defendant recommended euthenasia and shortly thereafter the dog was put to death. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the dog’s body would be turned over to Bide-A-Wee, an organization that would arrange a funeral for the dog. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wrongfully disposed of her dog, failed to turn over the remains of the dog to the plaintiff for the funeral. The plaintiff had arranged for an elaborate funeral for the dog including a head stone, an epitaph, and attendance by plaintiff’s two sisters and a friend. A casket was delivered to the funeral which, upon opening the casket, instead of the dog’s body, the plaintiff found the body of a dead cat. The plaintiff described during the non-jury trial, her mental distress and anguish, in detail, and indicated that she still feels distress and anguish. The plaintiff sustained no special damages.
 
The question before the court now is twofold. (1) Is it an actionable tort that was committed? (2) If there is an actionable tort is the plaintiff entitled to damages beyond the market value of the dog?
 
Before answering these questions the court must first decide whether a pet such as a dog is only an item of personal property as prior cases have held (Smith v Palace Transp. Co., 142 Misc 93). This court now overrules prior precedent and holds that a pet is not just a thing but occupies a special place somewhere in between a person and a piece of personal property.
  
As in the case where a human body is withheld (Zaslowsky v Nassau County Public Gen. Hosp., 27 Misc. 2d 379; Diebler v American Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp., 196 Misc 618), the wrongfully withholding or, as here, the destruction of the dog’s body gives rise to an actionable tort.
  
In ruling that a pet such as a dog is not just a thing I believe the plaintiff is entitled to damages beyond the market value of the dog. A pet is not an inanimate thing that just receives affection; it also returns it. I find that plaintiff Ms. Corso did suffer shock, mental anguish and despondency due to the wrongful destruction and loss of the dog’s body.
 
She had an elaborate funeral scheduled and planned to visit the grave in the years to come. She was deprived of this right.
 
This decision is not to be construed to include an award for the loss of a family heirloom which would also cause great mental anguish. An heirloom while it might be the source of good feelings is merely an inanimate object and is not capable of returning love and affection. It does not respond to human stimulation; it has no brain capable of displaying emotion which in turn causes a human response. Losing the right to memoralize a pet rock, or a pet tree or losing a family picture album is not actionable. But a dog — that is something else. To say it is a piece of personal property and no more is a repudiation of our humaneness. This I cannot accept.
 
Accordingly, the court finds the sum of $700 to be reasonable compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff.

COMMENT BY LARRY POLLACK ESQ.:

So who says the courts are going to the dogs? If Leona Helmsley wants to bequeath her entire fortune to her dog, why can’t Mrs. Corso throw an “elaborate funeral” for her beloved poodle (what was that dog’s name, anyway?) So she wants a headstone for her poodle’s grave–didn’t the ancient Egyptians build elaborate tombs to royal dogs? No, wait–it was cats, I think.  Well, clearly the Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital made a big mistake in sending Mrs. Corso Fifi instead of Fido; but why didn’t the funeral home notice the mistake, when they opened the casket to dress the poodle in its fanciest outfit? And surely someone would have noticed the switch at the wake, when the cat in the casket didn’t resemble the dog in the framed picture.  I understand that the aborted funeral was well attended, and the guests were all howling when the coffin was opened.  And how about that dog coffin–I wonder what one of those costs, anyway. See, we Jews don’t believe in fancy pet coffins; we bury our dogs in plain cardboard boxes.

This case, by allowing emotional distress damages despite the lack of any physical impact to Mrs. Corso, or any other human for that matter, seems to be an oddity. Indeed, in Fowler v. Ticonderoga, 516 N.Y.S.2d 368 (1987) the court specifically denied emotional distress damages for any “psychic trauma” other than that connected with a direct physical injury to oneself or to a close relative nearby in the “zone of danger.” In essentially overruling Corso, the Fowler court refused to allow any emotional distress damages for the death of a pet, regardless of how beloved. 

As noted in the opinion itself, it may be said that the Corso case is akin to those numerous cases that wrestle with the issue of damages for the improper withholding, disposition or handling of a dead (human) body.  This is a distinct exception to the general common law rule that emotional distress damages are not allowed in tort claims.  Even the failure to disclose the fact that one’s husband has died, for over a week, was held actionable for emotional distress damages. Finn v. City of New York, 335 N.Y.S.2d 516 (1972).

Similarly, we find another discreet exception in some negligent diagnosis cases, such as Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal.3d 916 (1980)(wife negligently diagnosed with syphilis, husband informed, marriage kaput).

HOMEWORK:

Is a hotel responsible for the emotional trauma caused to relatives, when it fails to notice that one of its guests passed away in his room–a week ago? Hint: The body was so decomposed, that it could not properly be prepared or displayed.

At the Law Offices of Larry M. Pollack, Esq., New Jersey Personal Injury attorneys can help you if you have been a victim of the following types of cases or injuries: