Stump, the Lawyer


AGAIN MOST EVERYBODY IS SAYING ABSOLUTELY YES. WE WANT TO BRING IN OUR DEAR FRIEND CRAIG ASHTON WHO IS HERE TO ANSWER YOUR LEGAL QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A QUESTION TOO. GOOD. GOOD. YOU SAID THERE’S A LOT OF ISSUES IN THIS CASE. YEAH. THE FIRST THING HAVE YOU TO FIGURE OUT IS WE HAVE THIS EXHIBIT. THERE IS A FOUR FOOT OR THREE FOOT WALL AND THEN FEET BETWEEN THAT AND A MOAT. THE FIRST THING IS WHETHER OR NOT IT’S REASONABLY KEPT AND MAINTAINED. THAT’S ONE QUESTION. THE NEXT ONE IS WHAT IS THE MOTHER DOING? SHE HAS TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE. HOW MANY KIDS DID SHE HAVE, WAS THEY ON THE PHONE, WAS SHE TAKING A PICTURE, TEXTING? THOSE WOULD BE QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT SHE WAS DOING WHILE THIS HAPPENED. NOW IF YOU DETERMINE THAT SHE HAS — SHE ISN’T PAYING AT TENSION, AND HE HOPS A FENCE THREE FEET, MAKES IT FOUR FEET FORT AND SHE IS STILL NOT PAYING AT TENSION AND HE — ATTENTION AND HE JUMPS IN TO A MOAT . HE HOPPED OVER A FENCE AND WALKED FOUR FEET. THERE’S MAYBE SOME CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE PARENTS OR THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE. THEN DAMAGES. SHE IS NEGLIGENTLY WATCHING A CHILD HAVE YOU THIS BEAUTIFUL, 17-YEAR-OLD ENDANGERED SILVER BACK GORILLA. I WAS BORN IN SOUTH AFRICA. I HAVE BEEN TO THE AAFARI THERE. THERE– SAFARI THERE. I’M REALLY INTERESTED IN SAVING THEM. YOU HAVE THIS INNOCENT ANIMAL THAT’S NOW FACED WITH THIS INTRUDER IN HIS ENVIRONMENT AND YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW DOES THIS THE ZOO ACT? DO THEY SEDAT IT AND THEY SAID THAT WOULDN’T BE SAFE. YOU ALWAYS ARE GOING TO PICK THE HUMAN OVER THE ANIMAL. UNFORTUNATELY THE ANIMAL WAS KILLED. NOW IF THE MOTHER IS NEGLIGENT THEN SHE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VALUE OF THAT GORILLA BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY. THEY AREN’T CONSIDERED HUMAN LIFE. THEN IF THE ZOO IS NEGLIGENT SHE WOULD HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION — SHE COULD SAY SHE WATCHED HER CHILD ALMOST BE KILLED AND SUFFERED EMOTIONAL DISSTRESS AS A RESULT OF THEM NOT PROVIDING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT. SOUNDS LIKE WE WILL HEAR LEGAL ISSUES. THERE’S TRESPASS, THERE’S NEGLIGENCE, IF THE ZOO USED REASONABLE CARE TO KILL THE GORILLA, ALL KINDS OF ISSUES. REALLY TRAGIC NO MATTER WHAT. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY WE HAVE VIEWERS ASKING QUESTIONS AS WELL WE HAVE ONE FROM LINDSEY. SHE IS — HAS A HARISH SHE SAID I HAD MY HAIR DONE BY SOMEONE WHO RUINED IT. MADE IT LOOK HORRIBLE A FEW MOSS BACK. IN ORDER TO GET HALF OF MY MONEY BACK HE MADE ME SIGN A CONTRACT THAT SAID I WASN’T ALLOWED TO POST ANYTHING REGARDING THE SERVICES ON YELP OR ANYWHERE ABOUT MY REFUND IN ORDER TO GET IT BACK. THIS IS CALLED A NONDISCLOSURE CLAUSE. YOU ARE BOTH HAVING GREAT LAIR DAYS. THIS IS NOT — I GET. IF YOU ARE — HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE. IT’S A C. YOU SIGN A CONTRACT. I SAILY GIVE YOU $100 AND I WANT TO LIKE MY HAIR. SOME OF IT IS OBJECTIVE. YOU WANTED IT RED AND NOW IT’S PINK. THAT WOULD BE OBJECTIVE I WILL WRONG. THEN YOU MAY NOT SUBJECTIVE I WILL LIKE IT THAT’S THE HARD PART ABOUT IT. THE ISSUE IS IT’S A BREACH OF C. YOU SAY YOU OWE ME MONEY AND THEY SAY I DID A GREAT JOB, NO. THEY COMPROMISE AND SAY I WILL GIVE YOU HALF AND YOU DON’T DISCLOSE YOUR BAD EXPERIENCE, THAT’S FAIR. IF YOU MADE THEM SIGN IT BEFORE THEY WENT IN THAT MAY BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO SAY THAT ARE YOU BASICALLY MAKING ME GIVE UP MY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. IF YOU ARE DEBATING OVER WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO MONEY AND YOU AGREE TO A COMPROMISE THAT IS FINE. INTERESTING. HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES AND IN CONTRACTS. DID NOT REALIZE THAT. I DIDN’T EITHER. THAT’S WHY WE NEED YOU. AND YOU HAVE GREAT HAIR. ARE YOU IN NO NEED OF THAT. WE DIDN’T PAY HIM TO SAY THAT. ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE YOU. HOW IS PIPER? SHE IS DOING WELL. SHE IS IN THE BACKYARD LOOKING FOR YOU YESTERDAY. PUT UP THAT PICTURE. SHE VISITED CRAIG A FEW WEEKS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *