Monday, December 28, 2009

APPLE, Canon Cameras, and Costco may be conspiring to sell cameras that just don't work properly.

There are several winnable lawsuits just waiting for the right lawyer. If I were a lawyer just starting out and had the ability to take a case on, rather than wait to be hired by a law firm, I would give serious consideration to taking on a corporate giant if their actions are obviously damaging the public at large. Below is such a case.

Apple, Canon, and Costco have all conspired to sell Canon cameras that disables the Canon Software package on the Macintosh Snow Leopard platform, even though the packaging on Canon cameras specifically states their their camera works on a Mac.

Technically, the canon cameras will work with I-photo, but one can't effectively use the canon proprietary software that comes with the canon camera. The Canon software is actually very useful, easy to learn, and fast.

It's been four months since Snow Leopard was released and every day anyone who upgrades to Snow Leopard and has a canon powershot camera has instantly been locked out of using the Canon Software. Meanwhile, Apple, Canon and Costco remain silent over the matter. Apple actually released Snow Leopard ahead of schedule knowing it would not work properly with Canon Cameras.

By releasing Snow Leopard a week early Apple gained status because they beat the delivery deadline. It is kind of like the wedding cake being delivered without the frosting and the cake maker then bragging they got to the event half an hour earlier than expected. Apple stands to gain by not making their Snow Leopard platform downwardly compatible as it forces consumers to buy into the Apple method of uploading photos.

Has Apple offered any of their technicians to Canon to make sure Canon cameras will upload properly onto a Snow Leopard operating system? Is Canon working diligently to solve this now 4 month old problem? Why is Costco selling Canon product that they KNOW is deficient? If Canon releases updated software to alleviate the problem four months after the problem first existed, does that erase the damage that has already been done to canon powershot users who use snow leopard?

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Protecting the Elderly from Discriminatory Practices...

Automobile Insurance companies can easily do more to protect the elderly when the eldery are required to exchange insurance information after an accident.

It is our assertion that after an accident involving my elderly parents and a younger driver (the younger driver was at fault), the younger driver further endangered my parents with his behavior while the two sides were supposed to be exchanging insurance information. (I won't get into the specifics here.)

Afterwards, my mother went for one physical therapy treatment but did not go back again because the treatment was not helpful. She felt if she continued the treatments the treatments would do more harm than good. It appears that because my mother only went for one treatment, the insurance company has low balled their offer to her even though my mother also suffered two T.I.A.'s later on.

The causal relationship between the two T.I.A.'s may not be provable, but they most likely cannot be disproved either.

Our original attorney did not want to take the matter to court, however they did assist in filing the case in pro per.

There are three specific issues that I would like to see addressed.

Firstly, I would like future insurance company policies to include language that encourages policy holders to act civilly after an accident and also when insurance information is being exchanged.

The person who created the accident put my father and mother through unnecessary and additional stress after the accident, and even put their physical well being in harms way a second time.

I want to combat this type of behavior in the future and believe this case can help accomplish this. While there is no guarantee that getting the insurance companies to add language to their insurance policies will reduce aggressive behavior after an accident, not putting a caution in their policies is questionable since it does not cost the insurance company anything to implement.

Our request is similar to putting a caution label on a ladder not to go above a certain step. Before such a warning on a ladder was added, the idea of a ladder warning was probably ridiculed as being unnecessary, but after it had been added, it no doubt has reduced the number of accidents involving the unsafe use of a ladder.

In another instance, when police officers actually visited gang member's homes and verbally read to them that they could end up tried, convicted, and jailed if they were seen with other gang members, gang crime actually dropped in those same neighborhoods.

Yet before such direct action was taken by the police, many would have ridiculed the idea that a police officer actually visiting a reputed gang member at their home to inform them about associating with other gang members in public as being pointless act, yet they too have now been proven wrong.

I am not suggesting the insurance company actually enforce the warning, however the end result could be more polite behavior simply by everybody being advised about the insurance companies request.

The second issue this court case would raise is to not set a discriminatory treatment standard for an elderly person.

My mother was 79 years old when she went for her first and only physical therapy treatment. After first being injured from the rear end collision with the defendant's car, and then being rudely treated by the defendant during the exchange of insurance information, my mother was concerned for her own health and safety.

After one physical therapy treatment my mother was concerned that not only did she not feel better, she became concerned she could be injured moreso if she went back for another physical therapy treatment.

She made a wise decision to not seek more treatment, but instead rest at home, and for that decision, she has been lowballed in a settlement offer. Why should a younger society tell a 79 year old woman that she MUST go for several treatments when she knows her own 79 year old body better than someone half her age?

Why are people half her age dictating how she must behave, especially after already having three unacceptable experiences related to the accident occur; the accident, the alleged behavior of the defendant after the accident, and the first treatment.

Each time the other person that was involved was significantly younger and in all three instances the result was not amicable for my mother. She said enough is enough after the first therapy treatment. Rest at home, for her situation, turned out to be a valid therapy option. Even at age 79, she was very active, preparing meals and doing many types of housework. She was not able to do those activities after the accident until she rested and healed.

Her decision to rest at home certainly was equal to or better than having someone half her age handle her neck in a way that put fear into her of an additional injury if she continued going for treatments.

The third issue is Damages.

My mother was injured by the accident, traumatized by the behavior of the other driver after the accident, was not helped by her first treatment, and then she experienced two mini strokes several months after the accident.

While there is no direct proof that the accident caused the mini strokes, the whiplash affect followed by two mini strokes several months later may definitely have some causal relationship as he had never had a T.I.A. before the accidents. ----------------------------------------------------

The value of this case could be as little as a thousand dollars, but could also result in a much much higher jury settlement if the jury feels that the insurance industry was too inflexible with how they deal with the elderly and needs to set a precedent to get the insurance company to listen.

I believe the three issues I have raised, if victorious in a court decision, will help all elderly people in the future and could start your own career down a successful path by having created an actual court precedent. ---------------------------------------------------------

The kind of personal injury attorney I am looking for in the Los Angeles Area....
I am looking either for a senior aged attorney who wants to fight for the elderly, and is interested in winning the case and possibly setting a precedent.

Or, the attorney can be someone who just passed the bar. If you happen to have a practice and have an impressive, "just passed the bar" resume in front of you, you may find this case an excellent way to see how a prospective future hire performs in court.

The attorney will get a percentage of the settlement (assuming we get one) so this is not a for free hire, and a firm that sends a referral get to see how the attorney performs without it draining their own law firm's resources.

If you are a law school professor and would like to recommend someone, that is fine by me as well. I believe this case could establish a court precedent that will positively protect elderly people in the future. --------------------------------------------------

I have one case filed in pro per plus two more that I would like to file after the first one is resolved. My goal is to protect the elderly from laws that either don't fairly represent them or take advantage of them because of their age.

The additional 2 or 3 cases will only be filed after the first case is resolved. I would prefer that my future cases be filed through an attorney. All of these cases have a similar theme that involve protecting the elderly from unfair insurance practices.