New Car Troubles? - Legal Tips
So you have just purchased that new vehicle and the new car smell hasn’t worn off yet. Out of nowhere, the unexpected occurs as the engine light comes on, the vehicle stalls or the transmission doesn’t shift properly. How can his happen to your new vehicle? In reality, this happens all the time. Different statistics show that between 1% and 10% of all new vehicles may be lemons.
If your new car has a problem, schedule a service appointment with the dealer right away. Make sure that the service department is made aware of each and every problem that the vehicle is having. Explain the problems in as much detail as possible, and make sure that the dealer uses your words to describe the problem and not theirs. When meeting with the service advisor, be sure to ask about Technical Service Bulletins (TSB’s) on your vehicle. A Technical Service Bulletin is an acknowledgment by the manufacturer that there is a known problem with your vehicle. The manufacturer is required to prepare a TSB for a vehicle after a problem or defect has exhibited itself on a number of occasions.
When you return to the dealer to pick up your vehicle after the repair attempt, be sure to get a copy of the repair order or invoice that indicates your chief complaint and the efforts that the dealer made to remedy the problem. Do not leave the dealer without this documentation. In Pennsylvania, the dealer is required to give you a copy of the documentation under established state law. When you get in your vehicle, check right away to see if the problem has been properly repaired or if there is a reoccurrence. If the vehicle has not been properly repaired or has a reoccurrence of the problem, schedule another appointment with the dealer. You must realize that you paid for the warranty that came with your vehicle, it was part of the purchase price. Do not be afraid to use it. You must also give the dealer/manufacturer a reasonable number of attempts to make the repair before you pursue lemon law assistance.
What I have found is that many times the dealer will state that they “could not duplicate the customer’s concern”. Do not allow this to stop you from attempting to get your vehicle repaired. Many problems that are found vehicles occur on an intermittent basis. Just because a problem doesn’t show up while the vehicle is at the dealer does not mean that it doesn’t exist, and further, does not relieve the dealer/manufacturer from the burden of finding the problem and fixing it.
If the problems with your vehicle are not repaired after a reasonable number of attempts (three in Pennsylvania, other states differ) then you may be able to pursue a Lemon Law claim. A valid Lemon Law claim will force the manufacturer to either repurchase your vehicle at a full refund, or will entitle you to a new replacement vehicle free of cost. In Pennsylvania, as well as many other states, you will also be entitled to free legal representation and recovery of all other collateral charges associated with your lemon, like tax, title charges, interest and the like.


Employment Law: Majrowski and Employers' liability for psychiatric illness
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes harassment both a criminal and civil offence, it was intended to deal with the problem of stalking.
Section 1 - Prohibition of Harassment
A person must not pursue a course of conduct which:-
i) Amounts to harassment of another; and
ii) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.
For the purposes of this section the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34
This case was a claim brought by an employee under the 1997 Act against his employer in respect of alleged harassment at work. The employee argued that his manager had breached a duty placed upon her by the Act and that the employer should be held vicariously liable for that breach.
This was not a case which the employee could bring under any of the discrimination legislation. The allegations were of general bullying intimidation and harassment.
The Act clearly established a statutory tort and the Court of Appeal had to carefully consider whether an employer could be held vicariously liable for a statutory tort committed by one of its employees where the legislation in question does not specifically provide for such liability. On the basis that unless the statute in question directs otherwise or there is a good policy reason why the principle of vicarious liability should not apply, the Court of Appeal believed that there was no reason to reject the argument of the employee.
The Court of Appeal was prepared to accept that although it was generally understood that the 1997 Act had been introduced to deal with the problem of stalking, it was nevertheless an Act which dealt with the prohibition of harassment in a range of different situations, not just stalking.
The appellant NHS trust appealed against the decision ((2005) EWCA Civ 251, (2005) QB 848) that it was vicariously liable in damages to the respondent (M) under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.3 for harassment committed by one of its employees in breach of s.1 of the Act. M, who had been employed by the trust, had alleged that his manager had harassed, bullied and intimidated him while acting in the course of her employment. An investigation by the trust had resulted in a finding that harassment had occurred. M had claimed against the trust for damages under s.3 of the Act based exclusively on the trust's vicarious liability for its employee's alleged breach of the statutory prohibition of harassment. The trust, relying on the phrase "damages may be awarded" in s.3 of the Act, submitted that the award of damages under that section was discretionary, and therefore harassment could not be equated with a common law tort. The trust also submitted that the Act was not aimed at the workplace but was a legislative response to the public order problem of stalking.
The House of Lords held that: (1) The principle of vicarious liability was not confined to common law torts, but was also applicable to equitable wrongs and breaches of statutory obligations. Unless statute expressly or impliedly indicated otherwise, vicarious liability was applicable where an employee committed a breach of a statutory obligation sounding in damages while acting in the course of his employment, Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam (2002) UKHL 48 , (2003) 2 AC 366, Nicol v National Coal Board (1952) 102 LJ 357 and National Coal Board v England (1954) AC 403 applied, Harrison v National Coal Board (1951) AC 639 considered. An employer could be vicariously liable if the employee's conduct was closely connected with the acts the employee was authorised to do and the conduct might fairly and properly be regarded as done by the employee in the course of her employment, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) UKHL 22 , (2001) 2 WLR 1311 applied.
(2) The effect of s.3(1) was to render a breach of s.1 a wrong giving rise to the ordinary remedies the law provided for civil wrongs. The enabling language "may be awarded" was apt simply to extend or clarify the heads of damage or loss for which damages were recoverable.
(3) Neither the terms nor the practical effect of the Act indicated that Parliament intended to exclude the ordinary principle of vicarious liability. By s.3 Parliament had created a new cause of action, a new civil wrong, and damages were one of the remedies for that wrong. Parliament had added harassment to the list of civil wrongs because it considered the existing law provided insufficient protection for victims of harassment. The prospect of abuse in cases of alleged workplace harassment was not a good reason for excluding vicarious liability.
(4) Section 10 of the Act inserted a new section, s.18B, into the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, which assumed that in Scotland an employer might be vicariously liable in damages to the victim of a course of conduct amounting to harassment in breach of the relevant provision of the 1997 Act. Parliament could not have intended that the position should be different in England.
Problems
The Act however presents an employee with hurdles to overcome if a claim is to be brought in this way. Firstly the 1997 Act prohibits only a "course of conduct" amounting to harassment, meaning that a single incident of harassment by an employee will not be sufficient to lead to liability.
Secondly, in order to succeed, a claimant must establish that harassment within the meaning of the Act has taken place. This means "alarming" the person or causing the person "distress" amongst other things.
Thirdly, vicarious liability will only be established where there is a sufficiently close connection between the harasser's conduct and the nature of his or her duties, and where it is just and reasonable to hold the employer liable for the harasser's actions.
This is obviously an area of law which is very much in its infancy. However there is possible cause for concern. An employee who brings a claim for damages in the Civil Court has two significant hurdles to clear. The first is that any injury was "foreseeable" and the second is that if the claim is based upon a mental injury that that must be a "recognised psychiatric disorder" requiring significant medical evidence.

------
Ian Mann - Employment Barrister
http://www.employment-barrister-uk.com
http://www.13kbw.co.uk
13 King?s Bench Walk
Ian Mann was called to the Bar in 2000. He practices in employment disputes representing both employers and employees. His employment practice embraces the full spectrum of Employment Tribunal, High Court and appellate work and covers all areas of employment law, especially discrimination.


All you need to know about personal injury lawyer New York
Injury is an accident that can happen to anyone at any time irrespective of their age, social status and financial condition. Dealing with injuries of any kind can be a traumatic experience for the person who is injured and for the family of that person as well. Personal injury lawyer New York or for that matter in any other place is a licensed legal professional who can aid injured people in getting their legal rights. Any injury physical or psychological that has been caused to someone as a result of negligence on the part of another person, agency or an organization can be represented by a personal injury lawyer. Having a personal injury lawyer at your disposal is a good idea for you to be prepared to handle any situation that may arise.
Well it is understood that you will be having many questions to ask to the personal injury lawyer that you hire for handling any case. First you need to be very clear about the things which you want to ask to the personal injury lawyer in New York or any other place. All personal injury lawyers have deep knowledge about the different facts related to a case and this is the reason why they are sought after by the public if they want any case to be solved through legal aid. The first thing which one must take care of while seeking to hire a personal injury lawyer is to find out a lawyer who is based locally. Well one would surely not like to travel great distances just to meet the lawyer and discuss the case with him. The best thing for a person to do would be to hire the services of an attorney who is locally based.
There are some lawyers who give free consultation while there are also others who charge fees for providing consultation. So before one seeks their consultation it will be a good idea to find out if they need any payment for the consultation services or not. Another thing that one needs to find out is the rights on has. You must remember that each sate has different laws and this is why one must find out about the always that are applicable to people staying in a certain state. Most personal injury lawyers have professional qualifications and they will be able to tell exactly what all things a person is entitled to do.
If the injury which has happened to a person is severe it is understood that the person will want to know about all the things which they are entitled to claim through the legal route. Naturally one would want to know who will settle the medical bills which will be needed for healing the injury and also the amount a person can claim from the individual who caused the injury. Each personal injury case is different so for this reason a person must sit with his/ her lawyer and find out about all the different things that they are entitled to. Personal injury lawyers have professional qualifications and that is why they are able to deal with any kind of legal case related to this.
Hadiya Robins is a legal expert.She works for Pulversthompson and gives advice to clients who are looking for New york lawyer,personal injury lawyer New York,Attorney Immigration New York.For legal advice and to get services of a Lawyer in New York visit www.pulversthompson.com