If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Ironic Man hired to repair roof sues homeowner for faulty roof   (chicagonow.com) divider line 53
More: Ironic, homeowners, repairs, repair roof  
•       •       •

9474 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2009 at 12:34 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-04 11:58:05 PM
I don't see any company named that he works for. If you hire a company to do the work, it's their responsibility to provide those safeguards to employees. If she just hired some guy, then she has to provide those safeguards herself, just like to any other employee.
 
2009-12-05 12:37:15 AM
He must not have been a very good roofer if he couldn't see it was in a bad state.
 
2009-12-05 12:42:09 AM
Don't hire the guys that stand around in the Home depot parking lot!!
 
2009-12-05 12:48:14 AM
next thing you know I'll have to warn the mowers about the mines.
 
2009-12-05 12:49:39 AM
LICENSED AND INSURED!

Look for an ad that says that (and still search around for quality of work).

There are plenty of "Two Scmucks in a Pickup Truck" that drive around and don't know shiat about roofing. My uncle who's a roofing salesman hates them not because he loses jobs to them, the jobs are merely delayed two or three years until their shotty work shows through.
 
2009-12-05 12:50:28 AM
This needs the "Dumbass" tag - for the lawyer who filed this suit.

Seriously, the roofer is supposed to work somewhere other than the roof? The homeowner is supposed to provide the safety equipment to the roofer? The homeowner failed to warn the roofer that the roof needed repair?

/ total waste to court's time
// Unless the judge is an idiot - which happens
/// This would never go to a jury
 
2009-12-05 01:06:51 AM
This never would've happened if the homeowner didn't give him a ladder and a hammer and actually expect that they knew what the hell they were doing. Sue their pants off, it's the only way these uppity homeowners will learn their lesson.
 
2009-12-05 01:12:02 AM
Time Traveler: Don't hire the guys that stand around in the Home depot parking lot!!

No kidding. Am I the only one who has a nearby Home Depot filled daily with a small crowd of "Imported Yard Work Engineers"?
 
2009-12-05 01:17:17 AM
wow seriously forgive me if im wrong but doesn't repair mean the roof is faulty hence therefore that's why he is working on it sounds like he planned this. Sounds like a scam.
 
2009-12-05 01:20:36 AM
"If she just hired some guy, then she has to provide those safeguards herself, just like to any other employee."

Regardless of whether he worked for a company or was a sole proprietor, he's an independent contractor, not an employee.
 
2009-12-05 01:23:26 AM
rhodges26: wow seriously forgive me if im wrong but doesn't repair mean the roof is faulty hence therefore that's why he is working on it

Yes, that is what the headline says. Congrats on reading the headline.
 
2009-12-05 01:28:12 AM
I read the complaint and it doesnt explain the nature of the alleged accident. It only talks about the supposed duties of the homeowner. Did he fall off the roof or through the roof and rack his nuts on one of the trusses? I couldnt find an actual description of the accident.

- Directed plaintiff to use the roof as a place to perform his work


Well no shiat her roof had a problem and she hired a roofer

- Failed to warn plaintiff of the unsafe conditions upon the roof


I find it hard to believe that she would hire a roofer and not give him an idea of what she thought the problem with the roof was.

- Failed to provide plaintiff with the necessary safety equipment to perform the work he was hired to do.


I wasnt aware that this was the responsibility of the owner, as the roofer is supposed to be the professional and have his own safety gear.

/That all said, as others pointed out, I didnt see a companies name in that suit. This guy was probably off the street. She should have done more diligence before she hired the guy. Legit company with insurance ftw.

IMO its a money grab and will be handled between his attorneys and her insurance company. Hopefully they will offer nothing, and at the most nuisance money and that will be that.

//Ive been on plenty of damaged roofs as an insurance adjuster (former now). I wouldnt get on anything above a 6/12 pitch roof without taking some precautions. The plaintiff is supposed to be a roofer who should have more knowledge and expertise of his profession than I did.
///I never fell off or through a roof
 
2009-12-05 01:29:19 AM
sex0r: "If she just hired some guy, then she has to provide those safeguards herself, just like to any other employee."

Regardless of whether he worked for a company or was a sole proprietor, he's an independent contractor, not an employee.


THIS.

Otherwise the homeowner would also have to file tax forms, collect Social Security and everything else required of an employer.
 
2009-12-05 01:30:02 AM
How come we allays hear of the initial suit and not what happens after?
 
2009-12-05 01:32:53 AM
What Would Judge Judy Do?
 
2009-12-05 01:39:13 AM
Ya, not feeling any sympathy at all for this guy. While her roof may well have been in such a state of disrepair that it was dangerous, well he's a professional (allegedly) he should be able to identify that and refuse to work there.

My bet? The guy is a moron who decided to bill himself as a roofer, or perhaps general handyman, and then decided to sue because he got in over his head.

No sympathy dude. If the job is too tough for you, don't do it. No shame in that, some jobs require many people and specialized equipment, but you are the one who needs to decide when it is out of your league.
 
2009-12-05 01:39:42 AM
JeffMD: How come we allays hear of the initial suit and not what happens after?

case settles
 
2009-12-05 01:42:08 AM
I hope the local contractors board gets wind of this and slaps the guy with huge fines and prison time for doing work that requires a contractors license without a license.
 
2009-12-05 01:45:38 AM
Saturn5: sex0r: "If she just hired some guy, then she has to provide those safeguards herself, just like to any other employee."

Regardless of whether he worked for a company or was a sole proprietor, he's an independent contractor, not an employee.

THIS.

Otherwise the homeowner would also have to file tax forms, collect Social Security and everything else required of an employer.


The government requires you to do that for anyone you pay for a job: the babysitter, the kid who mows your lawn, the guy shoveling the walk, etc. That's why you pay them "under the table."
 
2009-12-05 01:52:12 AM
Scam is the word running through my mind when reading that complaint.
 
2009-12-05 01:53:26 AM
johnsoninca: The government requires you to do that for anyone you pay for a job: the babysitter, the kid who mows your lawn, the guy shoveling the walk, etc. That's why you pay them "under the table."

Not if they are an independent contractor, then they are hired with a 1099. Makes them responsible for filing anything, all you do is keep your check copy and put it with your taxes.

If they don't file it, then it is their ass.
 
2009-12-05 01:58:08 AM
Ed Willy: LICENSED AND INSURED!

Look for an ad that says that (and still search around for quality of work).

There are plenty of "Two Scmucks in a Pickup Truck" that drive around and don't know shiat about roofing. My uncle who's a roofing salesman hates them not because he loses jobs to them, the jobs are merely delayed two or three years until their shotty work shows through.


That's right!
www.hardwoodfloorspdx.com
 
2009-12-05 01:58:50 AM
johnsoninca: Saturn5: sex0r: "If she just hired some guy, then she has to provide those safeguards herself, just like to any other employee."

Regardless of whether he worked for a company or was a sole proprietor, he's an independent contractor, not an employee.

THIS.

Otherwise the homeowner would also have to file tax forms, collect Social Security and everything else required of an employer.

The government requires you to do that for anyone you pay for a job: the babysitter, the kid who mows your lawn, the guy shoveling the walk, etc. That's why you pay them "under the table."


Except no.

"You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors."

source (new window)
 
2009-12-05 02:04:10 AM
Assumption of risk, case closed.

But, since we're talking about insurance companies and lawyers. Lawyers will threaten insurance company with a long and drawn out court battle. Insurance company calculates court cost vs settlement costs. Insurance company goes with settlement. Roofer gets small amount of money, lawyers get large amount of money, everyone ends up paying more for insurance. If the farking insurance companies fought these cases, we'd all be paying less money.
 
2009-12-05 02:05:36 AM
vinn01: This needs the "Dumbass" tag - for the lawyer who filed this suit.

Seriously, the roofer is supposed to work somewhere other than the roof? The homeowner is supposed to provide the safety equipment to the roofer? The homeowner failed to warn the roofer that the roof needed repair?

/ total waste to court's time
// Unless the judge is an idiot - which happens
/// This would never go to a jury



In a country where you can make millions for spilling coffee in your lap...

/yes, i know, that is the equivalent of Godwinning a lawsuit thread
 
2009-12-05 02:15:22 AM
RoyBatty: What Would Judge Judy Do?

She'd call him a fag and say his shiats all retarded.
Then she'd call the lady a dumbass for hiring the dude.

/licensed, bonded, insured, with a valid contractor number
//if any are missing then go with someone else
 
2009-12-05 02:15:23 AM
They were up there smacking each other with the hot mops.
 
2009-12-05 02:15:49 AM
um, why is this allowed?
why didnt the judge throw the person who filed the lawsuit straight into jail?

no seriously, this is why we need loser pays.
the lawyers would stop filing this bullshiat.

/they need to be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
 
2009-12-05 02:16:25 AM
NOT IRONY!


/ just kidding
// irony
 
2009-12-05 02:19:29 AM
Get off my...ROOF!

/foo
 
2009-12-05 02:38:29 AM
That's why I hire people that are registered contractors with a posted bond.

Arizona makes it easy to check: AZRoc.gov (new window)
 
2009-12-05 02:45:13 AM
Time Traveler: Don't hire the guys that stand around in the Home depot parking lot!!

Ya just go to the local middle school. They're much easier to bribe or just brute force into your van.
 
2009-12-05 02:54:11 AM
The Puzzler: Time Traveler: Don't hire the guys that stand around in the Home depot parking lot!!

No kidding. Am I the only one who has a nearby Home Depot filled daily with a small crowd of "Imported Yard Work Engineers"?


I prefer to hire the ones from the 7/11
 
2009-12-05 03:10:12 AM
Asinine. In Hong Kong, it's the law that any repairman who comes to fix an automatic door or whatever, is taken to know the risks involved.
 
2009-12-05 03:11:44 AM
JeffMD: How come we allays hear of the initial suit and not what happens after?

Cases get settled or summarily dismissed. The latter will almost certainly happen with this one, and I'm hoping this one gets dismissed with prejudice. When judges write opinions on cases they dismiss, the smackdownitude can be awesome.

BTW, subby, I expect you to submit a follow up if that happens.
 
2009-12-05 03:48:11 AM
Uh, that's why you don't hire illegal immigrants. Are they licensed, bonded, and insured? If not, you do not want them.
 
2009-12-05 04:40:30 AM
My mom hired a "handyman" to do repairs on her leaky roof two years ago and guess what! Six months and $5K later, it still leaked! Then she hired an actual professional who had the problem fixed in two days, and guaranteed his work with a written money-back offer.

Yeah the moral of the story here kiddies is never hire some schmuck off the street to do repair / remodeling work. Pay a few dollars more up front and hire a professional. If any of these "independent" handyman-types actually knew what they were doing and could pass a drug test (seriously, you can't stop smoking pot for two weeks to get your system clean?), they would have a real job with a licensed and bonded company.

On the plus-side though, that handyman guy hooked me up with a dude who could get some really good weed. I'm talking the sticky dank. And every time you came by to make a purchase, he made sure you were good and smoked up before you left, out of his own stash. So I guess the ordeal wasn't a complete loss... for me anyway. :)
 
2009-12-05 05:04:08 AM
TFA was plenty short on details. What if the contractor was hired to replace the shingles, but in reality it had become a breeding ground for harpy eagles, and a favored haunt of the hippopotamus?
 
2009-12-05 05:57:21 AM
There's a big area within employment law dealing with the distinction between contractors and employees. You gotta make sure not to muddy the lines between them... employees you gotta take care of and provide a safe work environment and equipment, contractors are deemed savvy enough to be responsible for themselves. It was drummed into me at work that you can muddy that line just by the seemingly innocent and helpful gesture of loaning tools to a contractor. Heaven help you if you loan them a ladder -- or a chainsaw... you just assumed a fair part of the liability if they fall down go boom.

Not clear from TFA if this lady blurred that line or not, but it looks like the scammers are trying to make out that she did. My M-I-L is always "helping" her house contractors with tool loans, meals, rides, you name it... all no-no's. Keep a clear, wide division of responsibilities between yourself and your contractors.
 
2009-12-05 07:58:00 AM
Notorious drunks: (for having a large percentage, not all...) roofers, surveyers (sp?), lawyers/judges, (any other suggestions?) [subbies?]
 
2009-12-05 08:23:16 AM
Just two day ago, my landlord finally gets someone to repair a huge leak in the garage. I overhear the guy quote him only $475 dollars for the repair. The guy repairs it.

Guess what!?! It started to rain the day after the repair, and it still leaks! Surprise. Surprise.

And, get this, the roof shingles don't match. He used light gray on a black shingled roof. Classy.

I hate renting.
 
2009-12-05 09:10:47 AM
Goble_EZ: Notorious drunks: (for having a large percentage, not all...) roofers, surveyers (sp?), lawyers/judges, (any other suggestions?) [subbies?]

Used to be reporters. They're gone now.
 
2009-12-05 09:33:36 AM
Looks like the blog post has been deleted... Chicago politics as usual?

Here's a link to the Google cached version: Man hired to repair roof sues homeowner for faulty roof (new window)
 
2009-12-05 09:46:47 AM
Agreed that this might be a frivolous lawsuit.

However, without seeing pictures of said roof (the link is farked for me), if the roof looks to be in good shape, then there is no reason for the roofer to check the structural integrity of the plywood sheathing and roof rafters.

Now, if the homeowner had said, "the roof leaks," a good roofer should want to look in the attic to see the damage. At that point, a good roofer would see the damage to the sheathing would have to decide how to remove the rotted wood without injuring himself.

However, why would the homeowner call a roofer if there isn't a problem with the roof?

/just saying
 
2009-12-05 10:22:26 AM
MBrady: Agreed that this might be a frivolous lawsuit.

However, without seeing pictures of said roof (the link is farked for me), if the roof looks to be in good shape, then there is no reason for the roofer to check the structural integrity of the plywood sheathing and roof rafters.

Now, if the homeowner had said, "the roof leaks," a good roofer should want to look in the attic to see the damage. At that point, a good roofer would see the damage to the sheathing would have to decide how to remove the rotted wood without injuring himself.

However, why would the homeowner call a roofer if there isn't a problem with the roof?

/just saying


No I actually think that you are wrong. This is frivolous.

The man should have checked the entire roof before beginning the job, not just one side of it. Why you ask? Because a professional would want to do 2 things. If there was a problem that they could repair and by extension make more money. And second they should also know that they are working in a safe area.

This would be like a cop only checking half the house for a burglar because that is the side that the window is broken on. The other rooms of your dwelling are safe because obviously he would have gone in on that side if he wanted what was over there.

Or it would be like an electrician suing because he assumed (without any knowledge) that the power to a house was turned off and he got shocked badly.

Personal responsibility goes a long way towards not getting hurt.
 
2009-12-05 10:28:22 AM
RoyBatty: What Would Judge JudyMike Holmes Do?
 
2009-12-05 10:35:05 AM
A few years ago I had my roof re shingled. I got a very reasonable quote from one contractor but when I asked to see his Workmen's Comp statement he asked why I needed that. I told him because if one of his Lowe's day workers fell off my roof I would not be the one getting sued.

If someone gets hurt on your property the State comes looking for someone to pay the bills. Guess who's first in line if the contractor is not insured. If it happens he will rip the magnetic sign from the door of his pickup and disappear.

In this case the contractor was the property owner so it is a valid lawsuit.
 
2009-12-05 10:44:46 AM
When a worker breaks his back on the jobsite all bets are off.

Let's face it, the homeowner hired this handyman because he wasn't charging the going rate the area roofing companies (ie: incorporated & legit business)must charge to handle their increased overhead.

Licensed and insured doesn't mean much either. Licensed for what, exactly? And what does the municipality require of that license holder? In our area, the county's contractor license requires this: an annual $35 fee; that is all.

Insured against what, exactly? Most tradesmen I know aren't insured for any kind of disability from accidents; they usually only carry liability insurance (bc it's typically the homeowner who sues the contractor).

If and when you hire a handyman to roof your house, do it with a contract. A savvy handyman contract will layout a framework that protects him from getting stiffed or sued. If it doesn't also specify the liabilities he's assuming as an independent contractor, have your own addendum ready for him to sign, too. Homeowners have responsibilities, too, and covering their own butt is one of them.

Or, you could always do the work yourself!
 
2009-12-05 11:00:42 AM
Mr. Spontaneous: Looks like the blog post has been deleted... Chicago politics as usual?

Here's a link to the Google cached version: Man hired to repair roof sues homeowner for faulty roof (new window)


Thanks for the link, been searching for the court filing with both of the party's names and gettin nuttin...

Researched the Cook County Circuit Court records with the case number but still got nuttin. I was ready to call shenanigans with the blog post being pulled and all (like the blogger got hoodwinked) but I checked the last complaint filings by date and the case numbers were right under this one. Last date in the database was Thursday so I'm guessing it was filed yesterday and will show up on the next update.

Timo

/why the hell do I care?
//why the hell do you care why I care?
 
2009-12-05 11:41:05 AM
Goble_EZ: Notorious drunks: (for having a large percentage, not all...) roofers, surveyers (sp?), lawyers/judges, (any other suggestions?) [subbies?]

Car Salesmen. Congressional Staffers. Congressmen. Food Service.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »