As a grade school kid I was fascinated by radio. Maybe it was because I grew up in a home with tight television restrictions. Maybe it was because I was a news junkie. I can't really tell you why, but one thing I am certain of - my old clock radio with the flipping numbers was always locked in on WCBS. I can still remember the jingle that they played in the late 70s and early 80s when the various reporters would give a quick sound bite and then WCBS would launch into the news at the top of the hour.
One of the segments that WCBS ran on an intermittent basis was Neil Chait's looking at the law. It wasn't on every day, but periodically there would be a report that would begin with a question - when is a.... this was the question that was addressed recently by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He would then discuss a particular legal scenario for 30-45 seconds before summing up. Many times the case had an odd or even counter intuitive result, but they were always interesting.
In my regular practice as an attorney I spend a great portion of my time doing legal research. Invariably I will stumble on a case with a truly bizarre fact pattern that makes for great shop talk with other lawyers or even non-lawyers who can't believe what some people get themselves into. I decided to make these little snippets of weird cases the focus of the Wednesday Weird But True cases.
This week I came across a case from the 1970's where a person asked the NYPD for help in finding his stolen car. He wound up finding the car on his own - it had been left a few blocks from where he parked it, albeit hotwired with the ignition replaced by a phony switch. The owner then called the precinct and asked them to come. No one showed up. He then called 911. Still no police arrived at the scene. Finally, the owner flagged down a police car and told the officer his story. The officer told the owner that he must accompany the officer to the precinct to "clear the alert." The owner was concerned about doing this since the car could be taken by anyone who flipped the phony switch. The officer then took the switch out and informed the owner that the car was now inoperable. The owner still protested and asked the officer to call the situation in on his radio. The officer said that he could not do so and the owner went with him to the station.
Needless to say, when the owner returned to the scene the car was gone -- this time for good.
The owner filed suit against the City and offered to settle for less than his out of pocket cost, but the City offered far less.
At trial, the City defended under a theory that the removal of the switch was a proper exercise of judgment. Additionally, the City argued that they were justified in telling the owner that he could not take possession of the car without coming to the precinct because of the "danger" that another office might see him driving the car, realize the car was stolen and injure him trying to apprehend him.
The Judge would have none of this and awarded full judgment to the Plaintiff. You can look it up - Susser v. City of New York, 97 Misc.2d 984, 413 N.Y.S.2d 83 (NY Cty. Civ Ct. 1979).
One of the segments that WCBS ran on an intermittent basis was Neil Chait's looking at the law. It wasn't on every day, but periodically there would be a report that would begin with a question - when is a.... this was the question that was addressed recently by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He would then discuss a particular legal scenario for 30-45 seconds before summing up. Many times the case had an odd or even counter intuitive result, but they were always interesting.
In my regular practice as an attorney I spend a great portion of my time doing legal research. Invariably I will stumble on a case with a truly bizarre fact pattern that makes for great shop talk with other lawyers or even non-lawyers who can't believe what some people get themselves into. I decided to make these little snippets of weird cases the focus of the Wednesday Weird But True cases.
This week I came across a case from the 1970's where a person asked the NYPD for help in finding his stolen car. He wound up finding the car on his own - it had been left a few blocks from where he parked it, albeit hotwired with the ignition replaced by a phony switch. The owner then called the precinct and asked them to come. No one showed up. He then called 911. Still no police arrived at the scene. Finally, the owner flagged down a police car and told the officer his story. The officer told the owner that he must accompany the officer to the precinct to "clear the alert." The owner was concerned about doing this since the car could be taken by anyone who flipped the phony switch. The officer then took the switch out and informed the owner that the car was now inoperable. The owner still protested and asked the officer to call the situation in on his radio. The officer said that he could not do so and the owner went with him to the station.
Needless to say, when the owner returned to the scene the car was gone -- this time for good.
The owner filed suit against the City and offered to settle for less than his out of pocket cost, but the City offered far less.
At trial, the City defended under a theory that the removal of the switch was a proper exercise of judgment. Additionally, the City argued that they were justified in telling the owner that he could not take possession of the car without coming to the precinct because of the "danger" that another office might see him driving the car, realize the car was stolen and injure him trying to apprehend him.
The Judge would have none of this and awarded full judgment to the Plaintiff. You can look it up - Susser v. City of New York, 97 Misc.2d 984, 413 N.Y.S.2d 83 (NY Cty. Civ Ct. 1979).
No comments:
Post a Comment