In a Personal Injury Case, Household Services is a Part of the Calculation for Damages.

      One of the most overlooked damages to calculate is the calculation of household services damages. Damages are partially calculated by the loss of wages through lost income. Additional damages can be calculated by valuing the loss of household services. This is especially true when a permanent injury is involved and it prevents the injured person from working, earning an income, and performing tasks at home.

      Personal injury cases traditionally calculate non-economic damages by trying to set a value on “pain and suffering”. The court will determine the lost wages caused by the injury and add on an additional amount for pain and suffering. Measuring non-economic damages can pose problems for three reasons. First, pain and suffering is subjective, it can often be unreliable, and it is difficult to prove. The basic methods for economic damages are readily understood because the court can easily determine the amount of lost wages suffered based on how much work the person had to miss. This method does not work well for lost household services since it is more difficult to calculate the “worth” of vacuuming the carpet or caring for a child.

     Because the Basic Calculation for determining the amount of damages does not specifically take into account lost household services, economists have created new ways of determining damages. One of these new methods takes the basic calculations of lost income and then adds the lost household service amount to it. Unlike the basic calculation methods where an arbitrary amount is determined to account for pain in suffering, the new method for lost household services assigns value to different services around the house and adds up the total loss. The loss of household services is calculated by assigning each task into one of twelve different categories, the first being “inside housework”, the second “food, cooking, and clean up”, and so on. Once categorized, the lost value for each category is determined by the amount of time the injured person is incapable of completing the task.

     Whether the injured party was in a serious car accident and will forever be unable to provide the household services or slipped and fell and will not be able to temporarily provide the services for a couple of months, it is important to be as accurate as possible when calculating the damages and thus, not overlook the value of lost household services. If you have questions about calculating personal injury damages, contact my office or another attorney who is experienced in personal injury litigation.

State Legalization of Marijuana and the Effects on Employment Law

Before lighting up your next joint or taking a rip from the bong, keep in mind the possible consequences with your job. Very little has changed since states started legalizing marijuana use and possession. Don’t assume that since the state legalized marijuana, you cannot be legally terminated or denied unemployment benefits. A majority of courts in the states have refrained from providing such protections.
Currently 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. Of the 23 states, four have legalized its recreational use. Since 2010 In Arizona, a person can only possess and use marijuana for certain medical conditions. Keep in mind that federal law still prohibits the use and possession of marijuana. Because federal law trumps state law when the laws are in conflict with each other, judges have been reluctant to recognize marijuana use as a right with regard to employment. Judges will often hang their hat on the fact that marijuana is still illegal under federal law and often rule in favor of the employer.

      There has been a number of recent decisions from various states that demonstrates judges’ unwillingness to recognize the employee’s right to use marijuana. For instance, in 2012 an employee who held a medical marijuana card, used marijuana off the job and failed a drug test and was subsequently terminated. The employee sued the employer but the court held that the state’s medical marijuana statute only provides a defense against state prosecution or adverse action, it does not regulate private employment. The courts have also rejected a former employee’s disability discrimination claim after a handicapped individual was terminated and upheld a state’s refusal to provide unemployment benefits because the court considered smoking marijuana as misconduct.

The best way to prevent getting terminated for marijuana use is to obviously refrain from using it. If you are in a state that allows marijuana use for medical purposes and you exercise that right, be conscious of the fact that if you are terminated because of your use and you bring a lawsuit against your former employer, an uphill battle awaits. Employers should be aware of the current laws and review their company policies and job descriptions for compliance. If you have any questions about rights concerning marijuana use and employment, contact my office or another attorney who is experienced in employment law.

Is Your “E-signature” Legally Binding?

Have you ever wondered about the validity of your signature when it is in the form of clicking an “I accept” box on the computer screen? Is the e-signature the same as putting your John Hancock on a piece of paper? The answer is, for the most part, yes. E-signatures are just as binding as signatures on a piece of paper. Like most legal matters, it is not always black and white and it is important to keep in mind the type of e-signature law that applies to your E-signature.

For over a decade, a common way of signing documents regarding student loans, cell phone provider contracts, and mortgages have been through electronic signatures, better known as E-signatures. Since 1999, legislators have succeeded in making a uniform legal effect of E-signatures across every state. In 1999, a number of states started to adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), which brought together differing state laws and make them uniform. UETA aimed to define E-signatures but most importantly, define the legal validity of E-signatures. Although 47 states have now adopted some form of UETA, states were initially not adopting the UETA fast enough for the United States Congress. In response, Congress passed a law in 2000, called the Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-SIGN”). When a person applies his E-signature in an interstate or foreign transaction, E-SIGN will apply. When transacting within one state, the state’s statute that is based off of UETA will apply.

  Although the UETA and E-SIGN are generally in concert with each other, there are slight differences. For instance, UETA requires an agreement between the contracting parties in order to change the effect of the E-signature. E-SIGN requires a “clear and conspicuous” statement informing the consumer of the effect of the E-signature in order to receive the consumer’s consent to use it. UETA is very permissive and does not require a statement. E-SIGN is silent on determining when a record has been sent and/or received and UETA makes it very clear. If a transaction includes both interstate and intrastate features, and the UETA and E-SIGN are at odds, the UETA will prevail. This is one of few times the federal lawmakers waive their preemptive powers over a state law that conflicts with a federal law.

Whether purchasing real estate or an online newspaper subscription, it is important to keep in mind that when you click on the “I agree” icon, it is equivalent to you signing your name on a piece of paper. Either the UETA or E-SIGN will apply, depending on the type of transaction.