Remember 9-16-06? Here is an interesting lawsuit.

I think the intersting aspect of this case will revolve around this snippet from the story:

The Wendt's attorney says he will introduce expert testimony suggesting straight line winds, not a tornado, managed to rip the home off its foundation. The National Weather Service rated the weather event an F2 tornado.

Why would it being a tornado or straight line winds make a difference in the construction standard being the alleged cause? I am quite curious to know the legal reasoning behind that. Perhaps straight line winds aren't considered as "damaging" or "destructive" as a tornado therefore laying more blame on the alleged construction deficiency?

I'm also curious to know who the "expert" witness is. I mean, trying to dispute an official NWS evaluation is going to be very very tough.

Indeed, if there are no precedents for this, I'm certain we'll see more litigation along these lines in the future.
 
I believe it was a reference to the crackpots who believe people who drive large guzzlers are contributing to global warming and thus, more and stronger hurricanes :rolleyes:

On topic: Thats pretty sad...the economy is in bad enough shape without more ridiculous lawsuits. If this proves successful i can see this starting a nasty trend that will eventually cause even more economic headache. When will people learn...
 
Adam Lucio said:
On topic: Thats pretty sad...the economy is in bad enough shape without more ridiculous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

If their house was built to less than coded standards, and less than the people were told it was built to, wouldn't that be a lawsuit-able offense?
 
Here's the kicker I think...

"Plaintiff attorneys also say the home the Wendts were in was the only one in the neighborhood to blow off its foundation and was the only home in the neighborhood built by Monarch Homes."

Based on that, I'd probably sue too.
 
Andrew Herron said:
Here's the kicker I think...

"Plaintiff attorneys also say the home the Wendts were in was the only one in the neighborhood to blow off its foundation and was the only home in the neighborhood built by Monarch Homes."

Based on that, I'd probably sue too.
Click to expand...


Still it doesn't say wether or not the contractor respected the code... I can see how a tornado can damage only one home in a neighborhood... All you need is badluck...
 
rdale said:
If their house was built to less than coded standards, and less than the people were told it was built to, wouldn't that be a lawsuit-able offense?
Click to expand...

100% agree on that one, but why introduce expert testimony about straight line wind vs tornado winds instead of expert testimony desmonstration about how the home was poorly built disrespectfully of the code?
 
I am not exactly how they build homes but I think had the house been more tied down with anchor bolts etc. it probably would not have sustained as much damage. I remember this event but do not remember a house being wiped clean off its foundation. Maybe they should get more structural engineers involved when construction companies who bulid homes so they will not try to cut corners. It may prevent things like this from happening in the future.
 
rdale said:
If their house was built to less than coded standards, and less than the people were told it was built to, wouldn't that be a lawsuit-able offense?
Click to expand...

I agree and if its blatently obvious that the house was built way under code, then they have a valid case...but then people are going to hear about this and such lawsuits will be abused...I guess well see what details end up coming out.
 
Most houses are built under code. It's called "time" and "money". I figure anyone who's got the mental strength and patience to sue would win.

After all, it's a person's unwillingness to deal with the mental aspect of a dragged out lawsuit that lawyers and companies thrive on to screw people over. All you need to do is just take the plunge and sue (if your case is valid).

Too many people go the "I just didn't want the hassle" route...and that's why companies and lawyers get away with it. The same thing that kills people in severe weather is what allows people to be taken advantage of: human complacency.
 
I agree with shane, if you look at how fast houses are built these days, what are the chances that the house is built by code and safe, anchoring wise, its sad to lose someone theres alot you can blame, if there is proof this house was built under code , and i mean visual proof then i can see going to sue, but i also agree on the bad luck part as well... while not likely, it does happen unfourtanetly. Mother nature is going to do what she is going to do there is no stopping it.
 
Steve Miller TX said:
I think the intersting aspect of this case will revolve around this snippet from the story:


Why would it being a tornado or straight line winds make a difference in the construction standard being the alleged cause? I am quite curious to know the legal reasoning behind that. Perhaps straight line winds aren't considered as "damaging" or "destructive" as a tornado therefore laying more blame on the alleged construction deficiency?


there would be a difference of a wind blowing "supposedly" from one direction, where a tornado has winds that twist.

I saw a great video of a small tornado in Europe, crossed a road in front of minivan, and hit a tree in the field next to the car--the tree disappeared, but it was NOT suck up--it was twisted and snapped-then sucked up.

But i am sure we all know this--I think this is just another JERK who is lawsuit happy and willing to PUSH IT and see what happens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John Erwin
9/16/06 REPORTS: SD/MN/NE *rescued*
Replies
12
Views
6K
Verne Carlson
Verne Carlson
John Erwin
9/16/ DISC: SD/MN *rescued*
Replies
1
Views
3K
John Erwin
John Erwin
Back
Top