by Reason of Sanity (13 page)

The State Bar’s website confirms that Patty’s real name is the same as the one on the Lexus’ ownership, so unless Patricia F. Vogel is a really common name in this town, that Lexus is her car. Maybe that’s where Jack should start. I tell him to check out Patty Vogel the attorney, just to make sure she’s the owner of the car – and while he’s at it, to try and get a photo of her from one of the many lawyer publications, her law school yearbook, her drivers license portrait, or from wherever he can.

I don’t think it would be a good idea to talk to her about this yet. I like to know the answers to the questions before I ask them, and in this case there are plenty questions and no answers.

A knock on the hull jars me out of my deep thought. It’s a delivery guy with a big gift basket that contains wine, cheese, cakes and other goodies that must have set someone back at least fifty bucks. I hand the guy a two-dollar tip and bring the basket into the dining area to see which cop is sending a gift to the little princess. To my surprise, I see that the gift is for me. It’s from Stuart. The note says,
Peter, thank you very much for your successful handling of my barratry case. As a result of the publicity, my business has doubled. Please let me know when you’d like to be my guest for dinner at the Chart House
.

That’s very nice of him. He’s become another hustler making money by working our judicial system like a slot machine. That’s not a nice thought, but I still can’t get it out of my mind, even though he’s a friend of mine and I’m glad to see that he’s doing well. On second thought, maybe I shouldn’t condemn him like that. I’ve had an opportunity to see one of his defendants close up in person and if that’s the type of industry that Stuart’s shaking down, then more power to him.

At least he has a really good choice in restaurants. The ChartHouse is a really close- by restaurant that’s a walking distance from our dock, and serves a good meal. I wish I could get myself to spend the money to eat there – it’s one of the higherpriced places on the water. I guess you can take a guy out of a Chicago tenement neighborhood, but you can’t take the neighborhood out of the guy. I can’t see spending fifty bucks for a dinner there that I can get around the corner for twelve. I guess the tourists are willing to pay twice the price for a view of the water. If I want that view, all I have to do is look out my window. Nevertheless, I call Stuart and thank him for the basket… and arrange to meet him at the ChartHouse tomorrow evening at seven PM.

I can’t wait any longer. My curiosity is killing me. Jack Bibberman has confirmed the fact that the Lexus does in fact belong to Patty Vogel and her husband. I have his work number, so I call him, under the guise of working with the insurance company. That’s not too far from the truth because after all, I am an insurance defense lawyer.

Walter Vogel owns a women’s clothing business in Van Nuys. His secretary puts me through to him.

“Hello Mister V ogel, we’re following up on your Lexus damages and just want to know how the repairs are going.”

“Oh yeah, the Lexus. Well it took long enough, but the body shop finally got it back to us. I guess it’s okay.”

“That’s good, Mister Vogel. By the way, there are a few unanswered questions on your claim form. Would it be okay if one of our people came by to talk to you?”

“I really don’t handle that stuff. My wife Patty is a lawyer – she takes care of the forms, but she must have done it correctly because otherwise you guys wouldn’t have paid the claim so quickly. Why don’t you call her office? I’ll give you the number.”

“No, that’s okay Mister Vogel, we have it in our files. We just want to make sure that everything was done to take care of your claim.”

Hmmmn. He says that the insurance company paid the claim. The insurance company says that no claim was made. I’m going to have to stop bringing the dog in on these meetings – he’s batting zero for two on this case.

If I have to choose which one of them is telling the truth, I’ll go with the insurance company. But I don’t think that Vogel was intentionally lying to me. He probably believes that his wife put in a claim and that the insurance company paid to have the car repaired. If that scenario is correct, then the answer must be with his wife, the mysterious Patty Vogel, attorney at law.

I call Jack Bibberman and learn that he was successful in getting a recent picture of her, so I give him a new assignment.

The clock is t icking on this case, because a hearing date is approaching. Instead of going to court with this lawsuit, I opted to choose arbitration instead. There’s a non-profit organization called the JAMS Foundation, which is an acronym for Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. They’re the premiere nation-wide provider of alternative dispute resolution and they do it with a distinguished panel of retired judges and other judicial-types of people that they call ‘neutrals,’ who hear the cases.

One of the reasons I want to take this to a JAMS hearing is because I’ll have the opportunity to select from a group of hearing officials who actually may know something about the law involved in this case.

Sometimes when you take a case to trial, you discover that the judge hasn’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. If it’s a subject or concept of law that he or she has never heard of before, then instead of presenting your case in an orderly fashion, you’re forced to waste time and energy trying to educate a judge whose learning ability has decreased a few percentage points for each year served on the bench.

I’ve spent years teaching law t o students; I don’t think I should have to teach judges too. If they don’t know the law, they shouldn’t be sitting up there on the bench. In arbitration, both sides first agree on the exact area of law that’s involved and are presented with a list of arbitrators who are familiar with that law. It’s then up to both sides to agree on which arbitrator to choose. They don’t have any axe to grind for either side, so you can get a fair hearing by a knowledgeable person.

Patty Vogel agreed to sidestep the courts and take our case to arbitration. All I had to do was tell her that I didn’t want to embarrass my client by having the fact of his peeing on a tree discussed in open court. Over the years, I’ve found it a useful tool to always give the other side a way to go without their losing any face.

In this case I have a strong feeling that it’s Mrs. Vogel who has something to hide, so I made it easy for her to agree to arbitrate by letting Vinnie take the rap for being ashamed. Actually, I think Vinnie wouldn’t hesitate to pee in the middle of Hollywood and Vine if he had the immediate urge, but that’s beside the point. We’re going to arbitration, and that’s what counts.

Over the past few days I’ve had time to do some research, and it looks like both Drago’s case and Vinnie’s action will both hinge on the court’s interpretation of one word: FORESEEABILITY, and I’m sitting right on the fence – arguing for it on one case and against it on the other. The thing that makes both of these cases so much alike is the fact that a crime took place before the plaintiff’s injuries – and an intervening act like that sometimes acts to cut off liability.

In Drago’s case, his estate’s law yer is contending that since the hospital had security cameras installed all over the place and because Drago’s room was on the same floor as the psychiatric ward, that intentional harm might come to a patient there, so that his getting murdered was a foreseeable event. That makes the bank’s liability extend past the slip-and-fall, all the way to the death in the hospital.

Naturally I’ll be going to argue
against
foreseeability there, because I don’t want to see the bank stuck on a wrongful death action.

In Vinnie’s case, I’m on the opposite side. I’m contending that it
was
foreseeable that a drunken customer would leave the restaurant and drive, so that when he crashed into that tree Vinnie was watering, the restaurant’s liability extends all the way to Vinnie’s injuries.

Attorney Patty Vogel argues that the unforeseeable intervening crime of car theft breaks the chain of liability and that the restaurant is not responsible for Vinnie’s injuries. She contends that the restaurant’s liability was cut off by the intervening car theft.

Personally, I’m torn. In both cases there was an intervening crime and there are only a few special types of cases where the courts have decided that a crime was foreseeable. The most common ones are assaults in unlit parking areas of commercial establishments located in high-crime areas. The courts will usually look to past events. If the plaintiff can show that there were several recent similar incidents in the business’ parking lot – and that the business was aware of these incidents, then the court would be more likely to find that the business had a duty to protect its customers with proper lighting and security.

On the other hand, when there is no record of past crimes and the one complained of appears to be an anomaly, it’s a different story.

In Vinnie’s case, I’m arguing that it doesn’t make any difference whether Harry Michaels stole a vehicle or not. He was driving, and that is something that the restaurant should have foreseen. That’s why they have a parking lot… so that their drunken customers can drive home. The very same customers who the restaurant causes to be drunk by taking their money and providing them with liquor.

In Drago’s case, I’ve got statistics to show that there’s never been a murder in the hospital, so that this one is a freak incident and one that shouldn’t be labeled as foreseeable.

I’m glad I’m not a judge. This is what they get paid to decide, and on cases like this, they really work for their money.

Wait a minute. Something just hit me. When I was in the courtroom talking to Harry Michaels, I happened to see his file on the Public Defender’s table. He was charged with felony drunk driving. What happened to the auto theft charge?

I call the Public Defender’s office and ask for the Chief Deputy. It so happens that he was part of our of night student study-group back at Betty Crocker college of law on Sepulveda, so he does me the favor of pulling out the file. I only have one question for him and it’s about the Grand Theft Auto charge. To my surprise, he tells me that the GTA was never filed. It had been on the prosecutor’s list, but apparently the alleged victim refused to press charges, so all the defendant made a plea to was the felony drunk driving charge.

That’s odd. Not only did Patty Vogel lead her husband to believe that the insurance company paid for fixing the car when it really didn’t, she also refused to press charges when it was stolen. Why would she do that? I call Jack Bibberman and tell him to get Patty Vogel’s picture out for some canvassing.

The mail just came in with a copy of the lawsuit filed by Drago’s attorney and I see that he followed through on his threat - it’s been filed in the Illinois Federal Court. I call Charles Indovine at the insurance defense firm to give him the news.

For some strange reason, no matter what happens on the Drago case, he’s pleased to hear it and tells me that I’m doing a fine job. As for the Illinois filing, he inquires about my status in the Federal Courts. I tell him that because I’ve been sworn in to the Supreme Court of the United States, that I’m allowed to practice in any federal court in the country. To my surprise, he says that he’d like me to stay with the case and to send him receipts for my travel expenses.

Is he serious? It would cost only a fraction of that to hire a local Chicago attorney to appear on this case. No specialist is required – it’s only a slip-andfall case and any personal injury defense lawyer should be able to argue against the foreseeability of Blitzstien’s intervening act of murder. I know he doesn’t have any particular fondness for me, so what’s his reason for spending all that money just to keep me on the case? Another unanswered question I’ll have to deal with.