How would you like to have this couple for neighbors? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

zz0011 · 03-16-2006, 07:19 AM

Or maybe you already do?

Ok, maybe not THIS couple, but their twins...

...but should we give `em an "A" for inventive?

Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself
Mar 16 7:17 AM US/Eastern
LODI, Calif.

When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name.

City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband.

"You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."

But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle."

In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount _ $4,800.

"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.
___

Information from: Lodi News-Sentinel, http://www.lodinews.com

Poppinjay · 03-16-2006, 07:22 AM

It's been done before, so C- for inventiveness. Convicts have sued themselves in the past, asking the state authority to pony up the dough since the inmate is destitute.

They must be a fun couple at dinner parties.

Charlatan · 03-16-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

"I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said.

But just as thick... just as thick.

The_Jazz · 03-16-2006, 07:43 AM

Believe it or not, I expect that in the end the claim will get paid. Gokey was working in his capacity as a city employee using the city's vehicle. There's no exclusion in the typical commercial auto policy for an employee damaging their personal vehicle. It sounds like the city has self-insured the coverage, which does give them some leeway over what claims get paid, but a judge is going to look at the prevailing insurance language and find no such stupidity exclusion.

There's a good reason why the city should not be allowed to get away with denying this claim. The city obviously did not take due care to make sure that employee vehicles were protected from the dump trucks. If any other employee had been driving the truck, they would have paid the claim. If it was a willful act, that's one thing and shouldn't be paid, but if it was the accident like it seems to be, then the city needs to pony up the money.

This is humorous, but the city's definitely in the wrong here from the facts as stated in the story.

Redlemon · 03-16-2006, 08:05 AM

There was a family in the Philadelphia area (late 80s?) that used to insure their vehicles with multiple agencies, then run into each other and file claims. Obviously, they were caught, but I don't remember the specifics.

zz0011 · 03-16-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

hey must be a fun couple at dinner parties.

If YOU'RE hosting the party, invite them and I'll come to, just to watch...

little_tippler · 03-17-2006, 05:17 AM

........

this would be funny if they weren't actually going to get away with it. Shame on them.

Psycho Dad · 03-18-2006, 07:30 PM

The city would have been ahead to pay the initial claim and then fire the guy for an on the job accident.

tooth · 03-20-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

... If any other employee had been driving the truck, they would have paid the claim. If it was a willful act, that's one thing and shouldn't be paid, but if it was the accident like it seems to be, then the city needs to pony up the money.....

That is the crux of the issue, from my point of view. But, I could imagine that the city would see this as a dangerous precedent to set.

The_Jazz · 03-20-2006, 12:49 PM

Tooth - I agree, but I think that the city is well within its rights to do exactly as Psycho_Dad suggested and fire the guy. If the guy did it on purpose, that should be a fireable offense. If it wasn't purposeful (which is what I suspect), it's an at-fault accident at the very least and should be enough to at least issue a warning and get the paperwork started on the guy.

Basically, I think that the city is pissed off and tipped the newspaper off to generate bad feelings against the claimant. Its interesting that the rest of TFP thinks the guy is a jackass for making a valid claim, but I see the city as the bad guy here. The city attorney should have paid the claim and called the guy's supervisor to start the paperwork on getting him fired. If you look at ANYONE hard enough, there's always a good reason to fire them. People who don't take the right steps in the process deserve to get sued for wrongful termination. As it stands now, the employee will probably be able to make a case for harrassment if the city's reasons for getting rid of him aren't ironclad.

03-16-2006, 07:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
zz0011 Crazy Location: buckle of the snow belt	How would you like to have this couple for neighbors? Or maybe you already do? Ok, maybe not THIS couple, but their twins... ...but should we give `em an "A" for inventive? Man Hits His Own Car Then Sues Himself Mar 16 7:17 AM US/Eastern LODI, Calif. When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages. Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck. But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault. After the city denied that claim because Gokey was, in essence, suing himself, he and his wife, Rhonda, decided to file a new claim under her name. City Attorney Steve Schwabauer said this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband. "You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property." But Rhonda Gokey insisted she has "the right to sue the city because a city's vehicle damaged my private vehicle." In fact, her claim, currently pending at Lodi City Hall, is for an even larger amount _ $4,800. "I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said. ___ Information from: Lodi News-Sentinel, http://www.lodinews.com __________________ 10th sig ~> "How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms?" -- Aristotle

03-16-2006, 07:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	It's been done before, so C- for inventiveness. Convicts have sued themselves in the past, asking the state authority to pony up the dough since the inmate is destitute. They must be a fun couple at dinner parties. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-16-2006, 07:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Believe it or not, I expect that in the end the claim will get paid. Gokey was working in his capacity as a city employee using the city's vehicle. There's no exclusion in the typical commercial auto policy for an employee damaging their personal vehicle. It sounds like the city has self-insured the coverage, which does give them some leeway over what claims get paid, but a judge is going to look at the prevailing insurance language and find no such stupidity exclusion. There's a good reason why the city should not be allowed to get away with denying this claim. The city obviously did not take due care to make sure that employee vehicles were protected from the dump trucks. If any other employee had been driving the truck, they would have paid the claim. If it was a willful act, that's one thing and shouldn't be paid, but if it was the accident like it seems to be, then the city needs to pony up the money. This is humorous, but the city's definitely in the wrong here from the facts as stated in the story. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-16-2006, 08:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	There was a family in the Philadelphia area (late 80s?) that used to insure their vehicles with multiple agencies, then run into each other and file claims. Obviously, they were caught, but I don't remember the specifics. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

03-17-2006, 05:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	........ this would be funny if they weren't actually going to get away with it. Shame on them. __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

03-18-2006, 07:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	The city would have been ahead to pay the initial claim and then fire the guy for an on the job accident. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

03-20-2006, 12:49 PM	#10 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Tooth - I agree, but I think that the city is well within its rights to do exactly as Psycho_Dad suggested and fire the guy. If the guy did it on purpose, that should be a fireable offense. If it wasn't purposeful (which is what I suspect), it's an at-fault accident at the very least and should be enough to at least issue a warning and get the paperwork started on the guy. Basically, I think that the city is pissed off and tipped the newspaper off to generate bad feelings against the claimant. Its interesting that the rest of TFP thinks the guy is a jackass for making a valid claim, but I see the city as the bad guy here. The city attorney should have paid the claim and called the guy's supervisor to start the paperwork on getting him fired. If you look at ANYONE hard enough, there's always a good reason to fire them. People who don't take the right steps in the process deserve to get sued for wrongful termination. As it stands now, the employee will probably be able to make a case for harrassment if the city's reasons for getting rid of him aren't ironclad. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo