Cyclists Must Be Careful in Tom McCall Park and the East Esplanade-Pedestrians can Get Hit

The eighty degree days have released a flood of bike commuters onto Portland's streets.   As a bike commuter myself, I have started to regularly bike commute with my toddler in a bike trailer.  My little guy and I do our best to stay on low traffic bike friendly streets.  However, once we are in downtown things can change depending on where we go.  

The bike path along Tom McCall park is our primary thoroughfare.  This long scenic pathway is a great place to duck away from vehicles.  However, it has its own unique dangers.   First, it is crowded by walkers, joggers, runners and kids.   These folks are enjoying a walk along the river and are often unaware of bikers passing by.   This problem gets compounded when cyclist are crossing the narrow sidewalk on the Hawthorne Bridge or the Steel Bridge and on certain areas of the East Bank Esplanade.    

“Tips For Riding on Tom McCall Park and The East Esplanade
1) Slow Down
2) Give an audible warning when passing pedestrians from behind
3) Give pedestrians lots of room when passing
4) Look both ways when merging onto the path
5) Remember there is a bike lane on Naito Parkway if the pathway is too congested”

To avoid a collision or near miss with a pedestrian cyclist should provide an audible signal when approaching people from behind.  I have personally witnessed a cyclist run into a pedestrian.  That incident could have been avoided if the cyclist simply would have provided an audible signal to warn the person.  This is not only a good idea, but it is also the law.  In this area of Portland  ORS 814.410 applies.  That law states:

(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following: (b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the sidewalk.

However, many joggers have headphones in, so an audible warning may not be beneficial.  That is why you need to slow down.  Us Cyclist need to remember that we need to slow down when the area gets congested with pedestrians.  I often see folks on road-bikes darting in and out of pedestrians at a high rate of speed.  At those speeds it is impossible to avoid a collision if a small child runs in front of the cyclist.   This type of behavior could also be considered a violation of ORS 814.410(c) which prohibits riding carelessly. 

Cyclist should also give pedestrians a lot of room while passing them.  Many pedestrians are tourist that are unfamiliar with the cyclist and the speed they travel at.  I have seen pedestrians and children dart in front of cyclist.   Giving yourself a cushion to react in case someone darts in front of you is a must.  

Lastly, Cyclist should look both ways before merging onto the main path that parallels the river.  I have seen cyclist  turn onto the path without accounting for cyclist approaching from behind them.  Pulling out in front of another cyclist can cause a collision. 

If you have been hit by a cyclist you should get the cyclist information and witness information.  The easiest thing to do is to take a photo of their ID on your smart-phone.  Insurance may provide coverage for the incident, but you must get the name of the cyclist that hit you in order to do so.  Cyclist v. Pedestrian collisions can cause severe injuries.  Broken bones and severe strains and sprains can be common.  If you have been injured by a cyclist call Ross Law LLC at 503.224.1658.  Jeremiah Ross is happy to discuss your case with you and provide you a free personal injury case evaluation. 

Please remember the law is constantly changing and to consult with an attorney if you have any legal issue or question.   

Jeremiah Ross Prevails in lawsuit against Portland RV Wholesale

I recently prevailed in a Lawsuit against another vehicle dealer on Portland's 82nd Ave.  On behalf of Ross Law, I represented a couple that purchased a motor-home from Portland RV Wholesale.   During the purchase the couple had questions about the motor-home and whether or not it would be inspected.  Portland RV wholesale's sales person informed the couple the motor home had been thoroughly inspected by Portland RV Wholesale.  

The couple later discovered the motor-home's  rear end and rear brakes were malfunctioning and needed to be replaced.  A mechanic noted it was obvious the rear end and brakes had been submerged in water for a period of time.  However, the couple never had submerged the vehicle in water, so the vehicle would have had to have been submerged in water prior to the sale.  If Portland RV would have inspected the vehicle they should have known that the vehicle was submerged and had defective rear brakes and a defective rear end.  

I relied on the Oregon Administrative Rules that apply to car dealers to show Portland RV Wholesale had engaged in unlawful trade practices.  The case was heard in court annexed arbitration.   The Arbitrator awarded also awarded my clients costs and their attorney fees under ORS 646.638.  However, this may be the beginning of a future battle. Portland RV Wholesale may request a trial de novo, and force my clients to put on the case again in front of a Jury.  Only time will tell what Portland RV Wholesale chooses to do. 

If you have been injured or ripped off, or a crime victim in Oregon please call Portland Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  Please remember that all outcomes vary and Jeremiah Ross does not guarantee you can prevail in your lawsuit.  Also, please note that this post is about a Court Arbitration, and Portland RV Wholesale has the right to appeal the matter and request a Jury Trial.   The outcome may be different at a Jury Trial.   

Ross Law LLC Prevails In another Arbitration Against Stop and Go Auto

Last month I posted about prevailing in  my recent case against Stop and Go Auto (AKA G&G Auto Enterprises LLC) in an arbitration matter.  Jeremiah Ross represented three other clients in a matter against Stop and Go Auto.   The Arbitrator awarded two of the clients damages totaling almost $45,000.00.  

The case was a complex transaction where three relatives attempted to purchase three vehicles from Stop and Go.   In doing so, one of the consumers provided property to trade in for her vehicle.    Ross Law was able to prove Stop and Go Auto unlawfully rolled the Negative Equity into the price of the new car.   Ross Law also proved Stop and Go used an illusory cash down payment that did not exist and noted it on the Retail Installment Contract.  Ross Law also proved Stop and Go failed to list the value given for four wheeler on the Retail Installment Contract   These were all violations of the Truth In Lending Act.  Ross Law also proved Stop and Go violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by not properly accounting for all of the property that was traded in, rolling in the negative equity to the purchase price, falsely advertising the price of the vehicle, and failing to give the consumer her key's back when asked. 

The second Consumer's case involved an unlawful Yo-Yo Sale.   After the three consumers left the lot with their vehicle, one consumer was called back in a couple of days later and told he got a better financing deal.  Unbeknownst to him the loan term was extended and the financing rate was increased.   This scheme allowed Stop and Go to lower the monthly payment while charging a substantial amount more to finance the vehicle.  Stop and Go also did not account for the property that was traded in to purchase this vehicle.    These were violations of the Truth In Lending Act and/or the UTPA. 

This case was also unique in the fact the consumers had attempted to settle their case with the dealer before I was involved.  They signed a release and waiver of all of their rights.  Basically they singed a piece of paper saying they would not sue the dealer.    I used the law to defeat the defense's claim that the consumers already settled their case. 

This was a very complicated case that another Attorney had turned down.   There were good facts and bad facts for both of the parties.  However, at the end of the day the arbitrator found in favor of my clients.   If you have any issues with an Oregon Used Car Dealer please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  Please note results may vary and there is no guarantee Ross Law LLC can prevail in your lawsuit.  

Visitors Fed Up With Localism Use The Law To Fight Back

Many people perceive surfers as being a mellow peaceful friendly group of people.   However, there is also an ugly side of the surfing community.  Many local surfers use violence, threats, intimidation, vandalism and even sexual abuse to drive off other surfers.   These "locals" fear there are not enough good waves for everyone, so they use these tactics to ensure their local waves do not become overcrowded.  As a surfer myself, I have witnessed localism all up and down the West Coast.

A recent LA Times article chronicles the what happens when localism goes unchecked.   The article focuses on the "Bay Boys" in Palos Verdes Estates, Ca.   The Bay Boys is a group of surfing men that come from wealthy backgrounds that have lived and surfed Lunada Bay for years.   They are known as being notoriously hostile to visitors and any surfer that is not known to them.   They constantly verbally abuse visitors, throw rocks at them, and use whatever means necessary to keep people from surfing Lunada Bay.  Law Enforcement is often of little help and does little if anything to hold the Bay Boys accountable for their actions.

People finally got sick of the Bay Boys' antics and have filed a Class Action Lawsuit against them in an attempt to restore law and order to Lunada Bay.   The lawsuit is seeking to prevent the Bay Boys from congregating at Lunada Bay and will force the police to investigate incidents at Lunada Bay.

If you are the victim of a crime and would like to know your rights and remedies against the wrongdoer, please call Portland Oregon Attorney Jeremiah Ross.  Please call Ross Law LLC at 503.224.1658.  Also, please remember this post is for informational purposes only.   If you have any questions related to the law or the issues in this post please call a lawyer.  

ROSS LAW PREVAILS AGAINST STOP AND GO AUTO

Ross Law prevailed against Stop and Go Auto in private arbitration. The case involved the sale of a truck to a young man. Stop and Go falsely advertised the truck as having a tow package, when in fact it did not.

Arbitrator’s Decision

Stop and Go also subjected the consumer to a classic “Yo-Yo” scam.   Stop and Go informed the consumer that the truck purchase was final.  A few days later Stop and Go called the consumer back requesting that he return to Stop and Go to sign financing documents.  When the consumer returned to sign the documents, Stop and Go used deceptive tactics to increase the purchase price of the vehicle by $1500.00.

Jeremiah Ross was able to prove Stop and Go Auto violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.608) and The Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1638et seq.)   As a result, Jeremiah Ross’ client was awarded over $8,000.00 in damages in addition to costs, and attorney  fees.

Attorneys involved:

Attorney Jeremiah Ross of Portland Oregon represented the Consumer in the matter.

Attorney Richard Franklin of Gresham Oregon defended Stop and Go (AKA G&G Enterprises), and Great American Insurance Company.

JEREMIAH ROSS HONORED BY OREGON STATE BAR

Jeremiah Ross received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Oregon State Bar for his service on the Oregon State Bar Uniform Civil Jury Instructions Committee.    The committee is responsible for drafting instructions Oregon Judges and lawyers use to educate the jury on points of law.

If you need assistance with a legal matter, call Oregon Trial Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658.  He is happy to help people injured by negligence of others, crime victims, and consumers.

OREGON’S RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT LAW

Attorneys representing clients in a case involving the purchase of a motor vehicle must carefully review the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) for statutory violations and other causes of action. The RIC is a valuable tool that can reveal  UTPA violations, Truth In Lending Act (TILA) Violations, and violations of the Oregon Administrative Rules.  Oregon Law has specific provisions that apply to every RIC in Oregon.  These statutes should be reviewed before drafting a Complaint or demand letter.

ORS 83.510(11) defines what a RIC is.  Basically the RIC is an agreement entered into in Oregon where the vehicle dealer holds the the title to the vehicle or a lien upon a motor vehicle, which is the subject matter of a retail installment sale.  Retail installment sales  make up the vast majority of vehicle sales in Oregon.

Oregon Law specifically prescribes the form and contents of the RIC.  Most consumer’s are provided the long pink piece of paper noting “Retail Installment Contract” on the heading.  ORS 83.520 notes a retail installment contract shall be in writing, shall contain all the agreements of the parties, shall contain identifying information relating to the dealer, purchaser, and vehicle.   ORS 83.520 has other statutory mandates, but the most important mandates are found in section 3.   This section is where statutory violations can be found.

ORS 83.520(3) (a) mandates the RIC to contain the “cash sale price” of the vehicle.  The “cash sale price” is defined as the price for which the vehicle dealer would sell to the consumer, and the consumer would buy from the motor vehicle dealer, if the sale were a sale for cash instead of a retail installment contract.   The “cash sale price” can include, taxes, registration, license fees and other charges for accessories and their instillation, and for vehicle improvements.

ORS 83.520(3) is very important if you are addressing a negative equity issue with the vehicle trade in.   OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits a negative equity adjustment when trading in a vehicle to purchase another vehicle.   The negative equity issue arises if the consumer owes more than the trade-in is worth.   (See  OAR 137-020-0020(2)(t) and (u) for a more detailed explanation of negativeequity.) OAR 137-020-0020(3)(aa) prohibits the vehicle dealer from raising the “cash sale price” of the new vehicle to offset the negative equity in the trade-in.   An unlawful negative equity violation may result in a UTPA violation, Truth In Lending Act Violation, or other violations.

ORS 83.520(3)(b) requires the RIC to note the amount of the buyer’s down payment, itemizing the amounts, if any, paid or credited in money or in goods and containing a brief description of goods traded in.   Violations of this section regularly occur when the dealer is taking in property other than a vehicle as the trade in.  I represented a client that traded in a television and video games for the vehicle down payment.  However, the dealership listed the traded in items as a $500.00 “cash down payment” on the RIC and failed to itemize the amounts given for the television and video games.  Arguably failing to comply with this section is a violation of ORS 646.608(1)(k), and ORS 646.608(1)(s).

Another often overlooked sub-section is ORS 83.520(3)(j).  That subsection mandates the RIC must include a plain and concise statement of the amount in dollars of each installment or future payment to be made by the consumer, the number of installments are required, and the date or dates which , or periods in which the installments are due.    Dealers sometimes claim to have deferred a down payment that was listed as a “cash down payment.” on the RIC.  Later the dealer asserts the consumer owes a certain amount of money for the down payment.  However there is not anything in writing noting that the down payment is owed, and the documents note that the cash down payment has been made.  This section mandates that if there are any future payments the amount and due date must be included in the RIC.  Failing to include the deferred down payment in the RIC is likely a violation of   ORS 646.608(1)(k) and  may be a violation ofOAR 137-020-0020(3)(t).

It is important to note, once the transaction is complete the dealer must deliver or mail a copy of  the RIC to the purchaser.  See ORS 83.540.   ORS 83.540 also allows for the consumer to rescind the deal in very limited circumstances.

Lastly, ORS 83.670 notes certain provisions in the RIC are unenforceable.   This section prohibits the dealer from enforcing any provision granting the dealer power of attorney or confession of judgment.  ORS 83.670 also prohibits the dealer from enforcing a provision in the RIC that allows the dealer or finance company to enter the consumers property unlawfully to repossess the vehicle .  Vehicle dealers and finance companies also cannot use any provision in the RIC to commit any illegal act to collect payments.

ORS 83.670(5) is the most important sub-section.  This section prohibits enforcement of any provision in the RIC, or any document executed in connection with the RIC, that relieves the vehicle dealer from, “liability for any legal remedies that the buyer may have had against the motor vehicle dealer under the contract.” ORS 83.670(5) As a result a waiver of rights or hold harmless agreement signed in conjunction with a RIC is unenforceable.  Attorneys handling car cases are starting to see more and more waiver of rights forms that prohibit the consumer from exercising legal rights.  Jordan Roberts wrote a fantastic blog article on the Waiver Issue that can be found by clicking here (Waiver Article).

Unfortunately, Oregon’s Vehicle Retail Installment Contract laws do not have a specific remedy provision.  However, the careful practitioner can rely on these statutes to support various legal theories and allegations.   If you find yourself involved in a case with vehicle  financing issues, it is imperative you carefully review the RIC and ORS 83.510 et seq.

Jeremiah Ross practices personal injury law and consumer law at  Ross Law LLC.