should I take legal action, Do i have a case

[pajeff02]

You are aware that recorded conversations are inadmissible in court unless the person being recorded gives consent to record the conversation?

And to the op, fuck were you thinking letting someone else drive your car. I let only 2 other people drive my car without me: My brother and my best friend (we've known each other 15 years) and he has a 00' Ws.6 so if he screws it up I get his car haha. I would at least get a consultation from a lawyer to see if there's anything that can be done and if not, take matters into your own hands.

Not only that, but it may be a criminal offense. If you surreptitiously record someone in PA, it is a Felony 3 violation of the Wiretap Act.

[01ws6er]

Not only that, but it may be a criminal offense. If you surreptitiously record someone in PA, it is a Felony 3 violation of the Wiretap Act.

Shit, really? So if you set up a prank on someone and record it it's a felony? Or is this pertaining to legal suits?

[pajeff02]

Shit, really? So if you set up a prank on someone and record it it's a felony? Or is this pertaining to legal suits?

Technically, a recording of another's voice where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a violation. Recording a telephone conversation, a meeting at work, a face-to-face discussion -- all would be a no no.

[waldo]

does a snowball have a chance in hell?

[gd1996]

This was via a civil suit? Or restitution as part of a criminal case? Sounds a little strange unless the other witnesses never testified...

We all got disorferly conduct after the incident. The guy who actually hit him was never part of the case. Reason being he wasn't friends with the ex wife and he was out to get revenge.

[gwballin]

Talked with my brother (he is about to graduate law school). The first thing he said was you were lucky he/she didn't hurt someone. If they had, you could be held liable. I told him you let them test drive it with the intent they would follow all traffic laws and he said it doesn't matter. Your car = You're liable.

He recommended small claims. In small claims there is less of a "burden of proof" and it is more what the judge thinks is fair. Which I already knew that, with my job I have to go to small claims about once every other month. I try to get the same judge every time. When I went last Friday he asked "have you figured up how much they owe you?" I said yes and gave him the number. "Judgment in favor of the plaintive" took all of 2 minutes. In AR it cost $100 to file small claims. $50 to file the suit and $50 to have them served with the papers. In this situation I would recommened using a process server to have them served.

Small claims court has the same "burden of proof" as any other court proceeding (civil or criminal). Now, the "standard of proof" is different between criminal and civil, but small claims has the same standard of proof as all civil courts, preponderance of evidence.

As for any judge not even allowing a defendant to present a defense, that is unconstitutional so I'll throw up another

[blackcar]

Small claims court has the same "burden of proof" as any other court proceeding (civil or criminal). Now, the "standard of proof" is different between criminal and civil, but small claims has the same standard of proof as all civil courts, preponderance of evidence.

As for any judge not even allowing a defendant to present a defense, that is unconstitutional so I'll throw up another

The defendant didn't show up. Out of all my cases only one defendant has acutally shown up. And that time it was my word aganist theirs, and the judge believed me over them so I won.

[gwballin]

The defendant didn't show up. Out of all my cases only one defendant has acutally shown up. And that time it was my word aganist theirs, and the judge believed me over them so I won.

So it had nothing to do with the judge (as you implied in your post) since anytime a defendant doesn't show, after having been served (giving up their right) judgment is entered against them.

[blackcar]

So it had nothing to do with the judge (as you implied in your post) since anytime a defendant doesn't show, after having been served (giving up their right) judgment is entered against them.

The judgement is not automaticly entered aganist them. I've seen him question other plantives even if the defendant didn't show to make sure the $$ amount added up. But since I'm in his court room about once a month (if you count evections), we go to some of the same meetings in town, have had lunch together, and the money I win does not go in my pocket, he knows I'm not gonna cheat and takes me at my word.

But the whole point of my original post is he is more likely to win in small claims than with a civil suit. And if he didn't win it would have cost him less.

[gwballin]

But the whole point of my original post is he is more likely to win in small claims than with a civil suit.

A small claims suit is a civil suit so your statement is not true, see my prior post:

Small claims court has the same "burden of proof" as any other court proceeding (civil or criminal). Now, the "standard of proof" is different between criminal and civil, but small claims has the same standard of proof as all civil courts, preponderance of evidence.

And if he didn't win it would have cost him less.

That is why small claims court exists.

[SMWS6TA]

Small claims court has the same "burden of proof" as any other court proceeding (civil or criminal). Now, the "standard of proof" is different between criminal and civil, but small claims has the same standard of proof as all civil courts, preponderance of evidence.

As for any judge not even allowing a defendant to present a defense, that is unconstitutional so I'll throw up another

In small claims court if the defendant party does not show, the judge reserves the right to:
A) rule in favor of plantiff by default, because defendant =no show
B) throw case out
C) postpone till a new date.

Most judges will rule A, I know because I sued a guy in small claims, guy owed me $500 and would not pay, took him to court, he = no show, judge ruled in my favor

[SeVeReDiStOrTiOn]

^^^Did he ever pay after the small claims?

[blackcar]

A small claims suit is a civil suit so your statement is not true, see my prior post:

When most people talk about a "civil suit" they are talking about a suit through Circut Court. Yes, small clamis is "civil", but it is handled in District Court.

[pajeff02]

By definition a civil action is "person vs. person", where a person can also be a business or corporation. In a civil suit, the plaintiff is generally seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief. Claims can be based on breach of contract, negligence, and about a hundred other things, including family law claims. The burden of proof is by a preponderence of the evidence.

In contrast, a criminal action is "state vs. person", and again, a person can be a business or corporation. The state is seeking redress for an alleged violation of the law and the goal is to punish, deter, obtain restitution, etc... The burden of proof in a criminal action is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Small claims courts in some jurisdictions may limit litigants to appearing without counsel. Not so in PA. Here, our "small claims courts" are refered to as District Magistrates (or Magisterial District Courts). They are limited to hearing civil matters in which the dollar amount being claimed is $8,000.00 or less. They also hold preliminary arraignments and preliminary hearings in misdemeanor and felony criminal matters. Summary offenses, such as public drunkeness and harassment, are dealt with entirely before a D.M., unless appealed.

State to state there are a lot of differences in how the justice system is structured. For example, the county courts in NY are called "Supreme Courts". Go figure...

[hoosierSS02]

Drive it straight into their living room. Fuck em!

+1

lmao

[hoosierSS02]

i work for a collection agency in small claims... get the car fixed, gather the receipts for the work done. document exactly what happened that day, leave out details that are going to hurt your case (i.e. you not being in the car with them). im assuming the repairs will be less than $6000, so go and file against him/them in small claims. he/they will be served with court papers with a trial date. if he/they don't show up and the court shows proof of service, you will be granted a default judgment. at that point, he/they is legally bound by the judgment, and owes you the money. if he shows up, you will each present your case to the judge, he will either grant you the judgment or dismiss the case. from there, he can either pay you directly or the court. the only risk in the scenario for you is losing the court costs to file the suit (it's $76.00 in indiana).

[Smittro]

Just a guess but I'm willing to bet the reason they took off your caps was to hide the knocking sound from the engine. Sounds like the punk dropped off mommy somewhere then took it for a spin without her. Then picked her up without the caps then had a few lies for her too. Punk probably beat the livin' piss out of it showing off for his buddies. Sad thing is now your car has some sort of damage. You just may have to eat this one bud. Time to take a ride with some of your buddies to where ever this punk hangs out. Give him some wall to wall counseling, in street justice. If you do attempt to go through the court system. You may lose, then you're out a ride and time off work and so on. Price just goes up from where you are @ now. Sorry to hear about your troubles man. Hope everything gets staitened out for ya...Good luck..

[2000LS1Bird]

LS1 cars are seriously too much for some people to handle.

I can't believe you let them take your car out on a test drive without going.

They could have killed themselves, and that dickwad "county commish" dad of theirs would be suing you right now.

Count yourself lucky.

And do what Sarge said.