Grim Window Cleaning News

Mystery over attacks on car: A father says he is at his wit’s end after a number of serious vandalism attacks outside his home, which he believes are down to a case of mistaken identity. Baffled Alan Whitby says the incidents have left his young family terrified. In the past five weeks, his car has been damaged twice outside his home on Percy Street in Sutton. On one occasion, every window of the silver Vectra was shattered and on another, paint was thrown over it. His friend, Daniel Guest, also had his car torched when it was parked outside the house.

Alan, a 44-year-old window cleaner, said: “I don’t want to make accusations. I have lived in St Helens for 14 years, but keep myself to myself. “The kids are terrified. They are only nine, 11 and 12. I think it’s down to targeting the wrong person. I have been told someone who used to live round here also had a silver Vectra. “I can’t even claim on the insurance, because I’m only third party, so it’s going to cost me at least £400 to sort out. The car’s only worth £1,000. “And after Danny’s car was burned out, I had a hammer through my car window. I hope it stops, because I can’t afford this.” Neighbourhood Inspector, Chris Gibson, said: “We have given crime prevention advice and an officer has been assigned to look into the incidents and look at potential CCTV opportunities.

Carer stole thousands from 94-year-old: Joseph Bennett should have been caring for and helping out frail pensioner Philip Coakes, of Churchill, but instead he allegedly took more than £18,000 from his account without permission over four months. Bennett, aged 39, appeared at North Somerset Courthouse in St Georges on Tuesday charged with two counts of fraud by abuse of position. Jane Cooper, prosecuting, said: “Mr Coakes is described as frail and his health has been deteriorating over the years. “Bennett was entrusted with the PIN number for Mr Coakes’ card, but there was a breach of trust and there is substantial evidence that he helped himself by using the card or by writing cheques.” Ms Cooper said the financial details were looked at ‘with a fine toothcomb’ and that £18,145.97 was taken from the victim.

Bennett who began as a window cleaner for Mr Coakes and his late wife Hazel six years ago, pleaded guilty to acting against the financial interests of the victim, but is disputing the actual figure involved. As Bennett believes the amount stolen between September 2010 and January this year is more like £9,000, the case was adjourned for him to seek further legal advice. The next hearing will be held on May 17. Charles Hart, defending, said: “He accepts everything about the transactions but feels the figures are not accurate.” The court heard that, from about 2007, as the health of Mr Coakes, of The Drive, deteriorated, Bennett was asked to carry out full-time work such as cooking, gardening and cleaning, and was paid £300 per week.

After it was discovered that Bennett, of Tavistock Road, Worle, dishonestly withdrew £1,500, Mr Coakes agree that he could work back the funds – but when more cash was taken later, police became involved. Speaking from the dock, Bennett said: “I do not want Mr Coakes to have to come to court at any cost. I just want this to be over and done with.” The court’s legal clerk said Bennett could face jail and he may have to be sentenced at Bristol Crown Court due to the severity of the crime.

On September 3, 2008, Cahill, an employee of Lily's Window Cleaning (Employer) (excerpts), suffered severe burns and other injuries when his metal window-washing pole made contact with the SDGE 12,000-volt electrical line located in the alley, higher than and adjacent to Property's roof. At the time of the incident, Cahill was preparing to wash the glass railing on the southwest corner of the roof, while standing with one foot on a metal air conditioning unit and his other foot on the bottom of the glass railing. On November 13, 2008, Cahill filed a personal injury action against SDGE, alleging it was negligent per se for constructing and maintaining electrical lines too close to Property in violation of state law (i.e., Cal. Pub. Utilities Com. General Order No. 95).2 In December, SDGE filed an answer denying Cahill's allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.

Defendant and cross-complainant San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE) appeals an order dismissing its cross-complaint for equitable indemnity against cross-defendants Maurice Maio, David Zeiger, and Nantasket Court Condominium Association (collectively Owners) after the trial court found that Owners' $25,000 settlement with plaintiff Shane Cahill was made in good faith within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.1 On appeal, SDGE contends the trial court abused its discretion by granting Owners' section 877.6 motion and dismissing its cross-complaint because, applying the relevant factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 (Tech-Bilt), no rational trial court could conclude the settlement was made in good faith and insufficient evidence supports the trial court's findings. SDGE also asserts the trial court erred by denying its separate motion for summary judgment against Cahill.

In April 2009, Cahill and Owners entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Owners paid Cahill $25,000 in exchange for the release of all claims he may have had against them arising out of his September 3, 2008, injury. In May, SDGE filed a cross-complaint against Owners for apportionment of fault and equitable indemnification, alleging Owners should be held legally responsible for their comparative negligence in causing Cahill's injuries. Owners subsequently filed a cross-complaint against SDGE for indemnity and other relief. In July, Delos Insurance Company filed a complaint-in-intervention against SDGE for recovery of workers' compensation benefits it paid to Cahill as a result of SDGE's alleged negligence. In August, SDGE filed a motion for summary judgment against Cahill. The trial court issued an order denying that motion.

"The court finds that sufficient evidence has been presented demonstrating that the settlement between [Cahill] and [Owners] is in good faith." The order then set forth the Tech-Bilt factors the court was required to consider in making that good faith settlement determination and noted that SDGE had the burden to prove the settlement was not made in good faith. The order stated: "In this case, [SDGE] contends that the settlement is not a fair approximation of [Owners'] potential liability for a number of reasons. [SDGE] is correct that [Owners] could be found directly liable where their negligence contributes to [Cahill's] injuries. [Citation.] [SDGE] is also correct that a land owner has (at least under some circumstances) a duty to take affirmative action to remedy the power line height violation. [Citations.] However, . . . the pertinent violation is measured in inches. Would an ordinary and reasonable land owner even recognize the existence of this violation?

Accordingly, we begin by addressing the first Tech-Bilt factor, which consists of two parts (i.e., a rough approximation of Cahill's total recovery and Owners' proportionate liability). We conclude the trial court could rationally find that, based on information available at the time of the settlement, a reasonable person could believe Owners had little, if any, potential liability for Cahill's injuries. As SDGE represents, it was undisputed that there was no General Order No. 95 clearance violation at the point of Cahill's contact with the electrical line because the 8.6-foot clearance exceeded the 8-foot minimum for "nonwalkable" surfaces.10 Therefore, in April 2009 Cahill and Owners presumably believed Owners had no potential liability to Cahill arising out of General Order No. 95 at the point of contact near the roof's southwest corner.
Nevertheless, the record supports an inference that in April 2009 Cahill was aware of the alleged General Order No. 95 minimum clearance violation near the Jacuzzi, which was located on the roof's northwest corner away from the southwest corner where he contacted the electrical line. Based on the November 2008 survey performed for Cahill by David Grimes, the distance between the Jacuzzi's "walkable" wood deck and the nearest electrical line was 11.8 feet, slightly less than the 12-foot minimum that General Order No. 95 required. Despite Cahill's presumed knowledge of that apparent clearance violation, the record on appeal does not show that in April 2009 Cahill had developed any specific theory of causation, and thus liability, based on that violation.11 Rather, it appears Cahill did not develop and assert a specific theory of causation and resultant liability based on that remote clearance violation until December 2009 in the course of opposing SDGE's motion for summary judgment.
The record shows that in December 2009 Cahill, in addressing the trial court's concern that such a remote clearance violation could not have been a substantial factor in causing his injuries, provided supplemental briefing and a declaration of an expert, Voyko Banjac, presenting a newly developed theory of causation, i.e., that had the electrical line been 12 feet from the wood deck of the Jacuzzi on the roof's northwest corner, then (based on Banjac's assumptions) the clearance distance of the electrical line at the point of contact on southwest corner would have been sufficiently greater (i.e., 2.4 inches more) such that Cahill's pole would have been about one inch short of contacting that line and therefore the accident would not have occurred. Furthermore, on December 23, 2009, Cahill signed a declaration stating that (contrary to his July 2009 interrogatory response stating his pole was fully compacted and only seven feet long, or 84 inches, at the time of the accident) he had recently inspected that pole and now believed it was extended to 115 inches (i.e., nine feet, seven inches) long at the time of the accident because one of its tubes was bent and could not be retracted. 

Accordingly, at the time of the April 2009 settlement, Cahill had not yet developed and asserted his specific theory of causation, and thus liability, based on the remote clearance violation involving the Jacuzzi's wood deck. Absent knowledge of that theory or other viable theory of causation, Cahill and Owners presumably were unaware of any potential liability of Owners at the time of their April 2009 settlement. Accordingly, the trial court could rationally conclude that a reasonable person, based on the information available at the time of the April 2009 settlement, could believe Owners (and, possibly, SDGE) had little, if any, potential liability for Cahill's injuries. Furthermore, the trial court also could, and presumably did, consider its own judicial experience in concluding Owners' potential liability was "so remote" that the settlement amount ($25,000) was within the ballpark of good faith settlements under section 877.6. Although in opposing Owners' section 877.6 motion, SDGE asserted Cahill's damages were conservatively estimated at about $5 million and he had claimed $40 million in damages, the trial court could have concluded those amounts were exaggerated and, in any event, the amount of his damages nevertheless greatly exceeded its estimate of Cahill's total recovery.