NYC Termite Pest Control Extermination Operators, Inspection, Fumigation and Treatment


Page 11234..1020..»

Patton Termite and Pest Control Services | Wichita Kansas

Posted: June 6, 2019 at 10:44 am

Patton Termite & Pest Control can respond promptly to your pest control needs in Wichita, Kansas and surrounding areas! We are a locally owned, family operated company that will take care of your pests, quickly, efficiently, and affordably. Each pest situation is different so we would love to hear from you to discuss your pest control needs!

Give our office a call at 316-773-3825 to speak with a licensed technician for pest information and a free quote.

Its our promise to be prompt, professional, and deliver quality service.

See what others are saying here.

We offer a wide variety of pest control services in Wichita. From residential pest control to large commercial pest management, weve got you covered! Our pest professionals will assess your pest problem and design a prevention program built around your specific needs that will put a stop to those vermin for good!

We look forward to hearing from you!

We offer Pest Control services in Wichita, Kansas and surrounding areas for the following pests: Termites, Bed Bugs, Rodents and Mice, Ants, Spiders, Cockroaches, Mosquitoes, and more! Click the pests above to learn more about our extermination services.

See the article here:
Patton Termite and Pest Control Services | Wichita Kansas

Posted in Termite Pest Control | Comments Off on Patton Termite and Pest Control Services | Wichita Kansas

Recognize these common types of termite fraud | The Mims …

Posted: June 1, 2019 at 12:45 am

Have you noticed signs of possible termite infestation in your Alabama home? Not sure where to turn? You might have contacted a termite company in the area to inspect your home and hopefully offer remediation. But, what if you still see signs of termites, or termites themselves after the company is done? Now what do you do? Its important to understand the various types of termite fraud claims you can file against a company for failing to remediate the termite problem in your home.

Reporting fraud is one of the most common types of fraud claims brought against a termite company. This occurs when the company is hired to inspect the home prior to sale. The company then provides false information on the final report to the homeowner. When this occurs the homeowner does not know the true condition of their home.

Inspection fraud occurs when an inspector, not always associated with a termite company, fails to properly inspect your entire home. Inspection fraud can also happen when you hire a termite company to inspect the home annually but it fails to do so.

The failure to honor contracts for repair also happens often when it comes to termites. If you have signed a contract with the company to repair your home or remediate it after termites have been discovered and nothing happens, this is fraud.

Treatment fraud happens when a termite company tells the homeowner that they have applied anti-termite treatment to the entire home, when in fact, this has not been done.

As you can see, theres plenty of fraud claims you can file against a termite company. Dont let termites ruin what youve spent years building at your home in Mobile, Alabama or elsewhere in the state. Dont let a termite company get away with providing ineffective service either. If you believe youve been defrauded, contact our office for more information about your options.

Here is the original post:
Recognize these common types of termite fraud | The Mims …

Posted in Termite Fraud | Comments Off on Recognize these common types of termite fraud | The Mims …

Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY, Pelham, NY …

Posted: May 30, 2019 at 10:48 pm

Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NYTermite Exterminator Westchester County, NY

Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. Experts in Termite Treatment, Subterranean termites are the most common and destructive in the U.S. Interestingly, they are found in every state except Alaska. Subterranean, by definition, means situated or operating beneath the earths surface; underground. These insects their home (a nest or colony) primarily in the soil or wood beneath the soil. They tunnel through the ground, searching for trees, brush and other decaying wood (preferred) found in nature. if this primary source is reduced or absent, termites look to other food sources, namely your home, Termites easily access a home through any wood in contact with the soil. Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. advises storing firewood several feet from the house and keeping the surrounding grounds clear of other wood debris. Regular inspections by pest control companies are highly recommended. A pest control technician can save a homeowner thousands of dollars in home repair bills by conducting routine professional inspections on a regular basis. Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. 24 Hours Hotline:(914) 361-9174 when you need help,Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. Here to help you 24/7Termites are insects with a very defined social strata. A mature termite colony may number in the millions, with each member fulfilling a defined biological role. The castes, not including nymphs (immature termites), are called workers, soldiers and reproductives. Typically, a queen and king reside in a mature colony. Winged adults are referred to as swarmers. They emerge from the colony and take flight (swarm) during certain seasons of the year, usually late winter to early spring. This marks the beginning of the termite reproductive cycle, as the swarmers are the primary reproductives. Swarming is also significant, as it is during this time that they are most likely to be spotted by humans.Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. expert in Termite Treatment.People often confuse swarming termites with flying ants. There are distinctive differences, however. In order to discern a termite from a winged ant, compare the visual biological differences:Ants have a narrow, wasp-like waist (more cinched in the middle of the body). Termites do not have a defined waist.Ant wings are about equal to the body size, with the fore and hind wings of unequal length. Termites have four wings of equal length that are nearly twice as long as their bodies.Ant antennae are L-shaped, with a bend, while termite antennae are straight.Leading indicators of a termite infestation of the home are scattered, discarded wings on floors and window sills. Other visual evidence is their earth-colored mud tubes (protective tunnels constructed by termites for travel), which are often found in damp basement corners, walls, wooden support beams, posts, doors and window trim. The extensive structural damage termites inflict may go largely unnoticed for lengthy periods of time, as the infested building appears structurally sound from the outside. If you suspect an infestation or wish to take preventative measures as a homeowner, contact to, Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY. to conduct a professional termite inspection in Westchester County, NY.

Westchester Pest Control in Pelham, NY, 10803

PH: (914)-361-9174

Do you have bedbugs? The best way to get rid of bed bugs is to call a professional exterminator. Are you worried you might have bed bugs and want an inspection to find out for certain? Westchester Pest Control is a bed bug exterminator serving Westchester County, New York.

We would be happy to inspect your home or establishment to help you determine whether or not you need treatment to exterminate bed bugs.

Once you have identified that you have bed bugs in your home or workplace, you must immediately take action to eradicate them. Bed bugs reproduce extremely quickly and unfortunately the longer you wait to fight them, the more they will grow in population.

Westchester Pest Control only uses highly trained, licensed and insured technicians to treat for bed bugs. We have designated bed bug teams that routinely work together to eliminate bed bugs. Treatment for bed bugs is not an easy, quick process. It requires a certain level of expertise, patience, and thoroughness to ensure an effective removal of this pest.Our teams will go into your home or work-space and professionally evaluate, treat and eradicate bed bugs from the environment. Including furniture, decorations, flooring, moldings, and walls. Each step in our service is done with care and thoroughness to make sure you get the very best in bed bug removal. Westchester Pest Control can also offer our K9 bed bug detection team to ensure that the problem is no longer present.Want to learn more? Send us a request for a FREE INSPECTION or Call us today! At : (914)-361-9174

AntsCarpenter AntsCarpenter BeesStink BugsMosquito ControlTick ControlBird ControlRodentsTermitesBEES, WASPS & HORNETSAnimal ControlYard GuardPest Identification ServiceBed BugsEverything to know about Bed Bugs!Bed BugK9 DetectionBed Bug RemovalBed Bug Heat TreatmentsResidentialHome Services

Call us today! At : (914)-361-9174

Hire Westchester Pest Control

Home Protection Plans

Commercial Pest ControlHire A Better Pest Control Service!IndustriesFood ProcessingHospitalityHospitalsManufacturingPharmaceuticalRestaurantsSchool and Day CareWarehousing and StorageMice Pest Control

Call us today! At : (914)-361-9174

Get rid of Bugs in Village of Pelham, NY, DISCREET BEDBUG INSPECTIONYour business, and your homeYou work hard on building an image and a brand. todays digital age, a businesss reputation can be harmed in a matter of seconds on blogs and message boards. Rumors of bedbugs found at your establishment can severely affect your business. You may also be concerned about the reaction of neighbors if you think you might have bedbugs in your home. Westchester Pest Control Offer Discreet Bedbug Inspections is . With our unmarked trucks, no one needs to know about your bedbug concerns. We offer inspections any time, 24 hours a day, and work to accommodate your schedule.Why a dog?Since bedbugs are very small and can get into extremely tight spaces, human inspections are only 20-25% effective. The canine relies not on a visual inspection, but on his nose, which is one hundred times more powerful than the human nose. Our dog has a proven track record of 97% accuracy with zero false positives. Our dog can detect both bedbugs and their eggs in places you would never be able to see. By finding out exactly where the bugs are, you can save money by targeting only those areas during the eradication process.Westchester Pest Control, Exterminators,with more then 10 years of experience in inspection and get rid of bed bugs. Our exterminators at Westchester Pest Control has experience and training to exterminate. not only Bed Bugs, we also get rid of Ants, Termites,Phone(914}-361-9174

How to Spot Termites in Your HomeEvery year, termites cause more than $5 billion in property damage in the United States. Termites are known as silent destroyers because of their ability to chew through wood, flooring and even wallpaper undetected for yearsdamage that isnt covered by most homeowners insurance policies.

As spring approaches and the ground begins to warm across the country, termite populations will emerge in search of new structures to invade. Starting from South to North, termite explorers, referred to as swarmers, will look for hospitable homes, with buildings that have sustained damage from severe winter weather particularly at risk. Once swarmers have determined your home to be a good fit, its likely that the rest of the termite colony will follow, resulting in a full-blown termite infestation.Westchester pest controlCall (914) 361-9174

Termite or Flying Ant?Many people will see termite swarmers in homes during the spring and mistake them for flying ants; this can end up being a costly mistake if the rest of the termite colony follows the swarmers. Winged termites have a straight waist,Call (914) 361-9174Westchester Pest controlLearn more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exterminator

More here:
Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY, Pelham, NY …

Posted in Termite Exterminator | Comments Off on Termite Exterminator Westchester County, NY, Pelham, NY …

Termite and Pest Control Los Angeles, CA – Western Exterminator

Posted: May 27, 2019 at 2:46 am

Call us for a free quote at (213) 382-8151 or contact us

Highly trained, state-licensed pest specialists

Unmatched line of products & services to keep your facility pest-free

Family and pet-friendly pest control solutions

Los Angeles, CA is the second largest city in the United States. Despite its size, Western Exterminator has been your friendly local exterminator in Los Angeles for decades. California is where we started out and we ensure that we remain true to our roots; that each of our highly trained, licensed and state-certified pest control specialists is local, so you get prompt, friendly, neighborly service. Western Exterminator has been trusted by customers to protect their homes and businesses for nearly 100 years and we strive every day to be the pest exterminators Los Angeles residents and business owners turn to for their pest control needs.

Our pest control specialists provide professional, effective, eco-friendly pest solutions to common L.A. pest such as termites, cockroaches, bedbugs and other problems like spiders, scorpions, fleas and ticks.

Call us at (213) 382-8151 or use our online form to schedule an appointment.

Dont take our word for it, hear from our customers first-hand how they think Western Exterminator is a top-rated pest control company.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

MERALEE GOLDMAN – August 9, 2018

Our service by Albert is always outstanding! Thank you! MeraLee Goldman

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Terry Calhoun – June 29, 2016

I have no bugs!!! Your guys do their job…. moonthly. Thank you

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

MRS FENIGSTEIN – May 21, 2018

My very positive experience with Western Exterminator is due entirely to the extreme professionalism, competence and consideration of Clyde, who has been servicing my home for many years. As long as he continues in that capacity, I will continue to be a very satisfied customer.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

PAUL BUTCHER – March 1, 2016

OUR SERVICE TECHNICIAN, WILMAR MEJIA, DID AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH HIS PERSISTENCE LAST YEAR TO RID OUR HOME OF A RAT PROBLEM. IT TOOK A LITTLE TIME, BUT IN THE END WE WERE VERY SATISFIED. HE EVEN WENT THE EXTRA MILE TO DISCOVER AN AREA OF ACCESS, AND PROCEEDED TO CLOSE UP THAT ACCESS POINT. THANK YOU WILMAR!

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Cristi Stitz – April 3, 2016

I was supposed to write this in December. Johnny Stickney is our normal service technician and it is great! Always helpful and nice. Thanks, Johnny.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Valued Customer CLG MANAGEMENT LLC – February 17, 2018

It was handled quickly and efficiently with concern to take care of the problem for the tenant

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Alex Von Furstenberg – December 3, 2015

I’ve had a few homes in a few states and I have to say out of all the exterminators that I have ever had, I have never met anyone that is more knowledgeable, helpful & friendly than Mr. Wilmar M. We cannot say enough good things about him. If your company had 50 more guys like him, to would put Terminex out of business. He better get a christmas bonus this year! Thanks again

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Joyce Smith – November 21, 2015

Armando Casillas is our service technician and he is very helpful, friendly, and professional. He is responsive and knowledgeable.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

MARY JO BULCHAND – September 12, 2017

I met Al when he came the other day. I was pleased he introduced himself to be the new rep. He was nice and pleasing and I was comfortable to tell him what Jose covered in spraying the backyard premises. It would have been better though if the office informed us that there will be a change of representative. Thank you for your service

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Lawn & Mike Shannon – September 27, 2017

Great same service man I had 28 years ago Brian So happy to see him, same house

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

ALICE KAAHNA – June 11, 2018

Very good

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

BRENDA LEWIS – May 7, 2017

My experience has been very good. My technician, Alex Zepeda is very courteous & timely.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

MRS J CARTTER – May 30, 2018

I am completely satisfied with the service I receive from Western Exterminator…

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

June Martin – May 9, 2018

I appreciated my technician’s knowledge and efficiency.

Pest control Western Exterminator Los Angeles

Rated 4 out of 5 stars

Valued Customer PLATTNER PROP MGMT – March 28, 2018

You need to get better

Different factors play into the price of pest control, such as the kind of pest, the extent of an infestation and the type of treatment.

Setting up an inspection with Western Exterminator is an important first step to figuring out the cost.

Find out more moreabout factors that affect our pricing.

Our famous yellow trucks cover a lot of territory in Los Angeles County and can show up on time to your home or business whether it’s in downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica or other areas.

We are the exterminators Los Angeles, CA, residents call when they are looking for local, fast, reliable pest control solutions. Contact usfor a free survey by a state-certified pest specialist

Whether you are a tenant or a landlord at a rental unit, you may wonder whether the landlord is obligated to take care of pest control needs that arise. A landlord needs to supply an environment without pests, but keep in mind that if youre a tenant and you do not submit to sanitation standards, you could get into trouble. Also, sometimes the tenant needs to report pest issues in a prompt way or else he or she is fined or evicted.

Southern California contains multiple pests, such as termites,fleasand ants. For example, thecat fleacan infest dogs and cats and it also feeds on human blood. Termites, as you may know, can mean bad news for your home or business if you dont act. Andred imported fire antshave venom that produces a burning feeling (and some people are allergic to their stings). Its important to stay watchful and guarded against these pests and Western Exterminator can help you get rid of these creatures. Reach out to us today.

If you have a mouse infestation at your Los Angeles home or business, the issue should be tackled as soon as possible. Trying to eliminate mice yourself is generally not a long-term solution and does not work as well as turning to a professional to combat the problem.

The most effective way to get rid of mice is to contact a pest expert such as Western Exterminator. We know how to do away with these rodents and can help you keep them from returning.Get in touchif you think you have a mouse problem.

This video player requires JavaScript.

Contact Western Exterminator at (213) 382-8151 to have an ant control specialist determine the species of ant infesting your property and put an end to the problem once and for all.

With global travel and urbanisation on the rise, bed bugs continue to be a problem. Found in homes and businesses, these blood feeders are easily transferred from one location to another. Bed bugs cause distress to homeowners and are associated with a host of negative impact to businesses. Loss of customers, loss of profit and potentially irreparable damage to brand and reputation.

As the experts in pest control, Western Exterminators proactive approach to bed bug treatment involves education, early detection and proven bed bug eradication methods.

Contact us todayfor a bed bug service Los Angeles property owners can rely on.

The idea of a rodent infestation on your property might send shivers down your spine. Rats and mice can transmit diseases, cause damage to your home or business, and leave behind unsightly, unhygienic droppings. Additionally, the presence of a rodent infestation at a business is runs the risk of damaging your business brand image.

Do you suspect that mice or rats have invaded your premises? Western Exterminator can control a rodent infestation at your Los Angeles property.

Act quickly and contact us today for a rodent inspection.

Western Exterminator has expertise in many business sectors including healthcare, multifamily housing and facilities management. We have in-depthknowledge of the stringent food safety laws that govern businesses in the food supply chain including food processors, grocery stores, hotels and restaurants.

We can advise on building protection, pest prevention and pesttreatments that enable our customers to meet auditing requirements and remain legally compliant with food safety laws and regulations.

Call us and we will arrange for your local pest specialist to contact you.

We will discuss your pest problem, schedule an appointment and provide a quote and recommendations.

Our state certified pest specialists will come to your home or business and provide treatment.

We’ll make as many visits as you require to ensure your problem is resolved.

Read the original:
Termite and Pest Control Los Angeles, CA – Western Exterminator

Posted in Termite Extermination | Comments Off on Termite and Pest Control Los Angeles, CA – Western Exterminator

Termite Service | Termite Extermination | Termite Inspection

Posted: at 2:46 am

Termite treatment without tenting

Besides fumigation, Admiral Pest Control offers other Drywood Termite treatment methods. Admiral uses environmentally friendly Bora-Care for local and preventative treatments on unpainted wood members. Bora Care is a low toxicity wood preservative that has a low environmental impact. With Bora-Care, once the wood is treated it is no longer a food source and termites cannot infest, nor live in, the wood. Bora-Care will remain in the wood for the life of the wood. Twelve years of efficacy studies and 16 years of treatments in the field have shown Bora-Cares ability to prevent termites and other wood-destroying insects from consuming wood or tubing over treated wood to reach untreated wood. Bora- Care treatments can be used in addition to fumigation to make sure Termites can’t re-infest your home.

Admiral Pest Control also uses Termidor Foam for localized termite treatments. Whenever a termite ingests wood that’s been treated or touches Termidor, it becomes a carrier, transferring Termidor to other termites it contacts. These termites, in turn, can become secondary carriers, behaving normally while they transfer Termidor to other termites they contactand so on within the colony. Because Termidor is slow-acting, it gives individual termites ample time to transfer it to others in the population. This unique, spiraling process is called the Transfer Effect, and its devastating results maximize the protection of your structure. For more information on localized treatment call our office and ask to speak with a termite inspector or take a look at this infographic from termidorhome.com.

With more than 70 years of experience providing termite control in southern California, weve seen many of the termite treatment fads come and go. Some of these fad treatments include things like orange oil, freezing and electricity. While these treatments can be effective, most require that the product come in direct contact with termites. In most cases, this requires technicians to drill holes in your homes walls to access infested areas. We know from experience that there are nooks and crannies in all homes that our technicians can not reach, potentially leaving your home at risk for continued infestations. As such we strongly recommend fumigation for the most severe infestations and Localized treatment with Termidor and/or Bora-Care for smaller infestations.

If Subterranean Termites are your problem, Admiral Pest Control uses Termidor S.C to make sure these tireless wood eaters are taken care of. Whenever a termite ingests or touches Termidor, it becomes a carrier, transferring Termidor to other termites it contacts. These termites, in turn, can become secondary carriers, behaving normally while they transfer Termidor to other termites they contactand so on within the colony. Because Termidor is slow-acting, it gives individual termites ample time to transfer it to others in the population. This unique, spiraling process is called the Transfer Effect, and its devastating results maximize the protection of your structure. For more information on Termidor S.C call our office and ask to speak with a termite inspector or take a look at this infographic from termidorhome.com.

Our Yearly Termite Control Service is a worry free protection program against Termites. After we perform a Termite treatment or fumigation, our Yearly Termite Control Service guarantees your property against both Drywood and Subterranean Termites and includes treating and re-fumigation, if necessary. All this at no additional cost, as long as the annual contract is active. The service includes a thorough annual inspection performed by one of our licensed inspectors, a state report informing you of any activity, and a complimentary exterior treatment to help keep nuisance pests away. This service is fully transferable, if you sell your home the new owners have the opportunity to continue this invaluable service.

Follow this link:
Termite Service | Termite Extermination | Termite Inspection

Posted in Termite Extermination | Comments Off on Termite Service | Termite Extermination | Termite Inspection

Pest Control Salina & McPherson, KS | Hassman Termite …

Posted: at 2:44 am

Pest Control Salina & McPherson, KS | Hassman Termite & Pest Control : Hassman Termite Call 1-866-910-4872 Todayfor a Home Inspection.785-827-6750, 620-241-5260 Eliminate whats bugging you.

All sorts of pests want to share your home with you. The list could include spiders, crickets, roaches, termites, and fleas. Rodents might prefer your garage or attic. If these uninvited guests become too much to bear, we can easily thin the crowd.

Ours is a family-owned and operated business. For over 50 years, weve been helping central Kansas residents like you eliminate all sorts of household pests efficiently and economically. Our entire field staff consists of Commercial Certified Technicians. Their training and many years of experience are your assurance that your home will be treated thoroughly and safely.

Hassman Termite and Pest Control now offers you choices in how you want your home protected.

BASF High Pressure Injection System using Termidor HPII

Sentricon Termite Colony Elimination System featuring Always Active technology

Abilene, Assaria, Bennington, Brookville, Buhler, Canton, Chapman, Durham, Elbing, Ellsworth, Enterprise, Falun, Florence, Galva, Gypsum, Herington, Hesston, Hillsboro, Inman, Kanopolis, Lindsborg, Little River, Marion, Marquette, McPherson, Minneapolis, Moundridge, New Cambria, Newton, Niles, Peabody, Roxbury, Salina, Solomon, Tescott, Windom and other surrounding areas.

2019 Hassman Termite & Pest Control

Go here to read the rest:
Pest Control Salina & McPherson, KS | Hassman Termite …

Posted in Termite Pest Control | Comments Off on Pest Control Salina & McPherson, KS | Hassman Termite …

Termite Tenting & Fumigation- Cost, Preparation, Safety …

Posted: May 25, 2019 at 2:43 pm

If you have a very big house and termites infest it, your property will be highly damaged. Termite fumigation is one of the most expensive yet the most effective ways of getting rid of termites in case of a large infestation.

This article describes the process, the costs associated with the procedures, safety of using this method and cleaning up after tenting

Also referred to as termite tenting, termite fumigation is a process which involves sealing of your home using tarps and letting in a fumigant which eliminates any termites present.

It involves killing of termites using a poisonous gas. Vikane is the fumigant which in most cases is released into the structure to kill termites.

When the professional fumigating your house introduces the fumigant into the sealed structure, it circulates all through the house ensuring it gets into any cracks and crevices.

When termites inhale the fumigant, they are deprived of oxygen and this causes their nervous system to fail and they suffocate to death.

When the fumigation expert is through with the process and is certain all the termites have been exposed to the fumigant, he or she removes the termite fumigation tent.

Upon removal of the tarps, the fumigant disperses into the air and should be given a minimum of 6 hours to totally aerate the house.

It is not until the expert carries out a test on each room to ensure the fumigant is totally gone that you can get into the house.

Most people do not like their homes being fumigated probably because of the procedures involved and the need to vacate homes for several hours.

However, there are cases where fumigation is necessary especially if you want to eliminate termites for good. Below are some of the cases which necessitate termite fumigation;

Termite fumigation process takes an average of two to three days. This will depend on the level of infestation as well as the size of your house.

Once the termite fumigation process is done, the termites that were in the house will all be killed. Although the termites do not die immediately, they will eventually die before the two or three days are over.

Termite tenting kills termites but does not prevent future infestations. This is considered to be one of the drawbacks that come with this method of termite treatment.

Termite tenting is one of the most expensive termite treatment methods. The average termite fumigation cost is $1200 to $2500 in the case of house of 1250 square foot.

For a 2500 square foot house, the cost is slightly higher and is around $2200 to $3800.

This cost however varies depending on several factors with the main one being the size of your house.

If your house is very big, you expect that you will pay more money for the treatment. This is usually because, not only will the chemicals used be more but also the work done is more when compared to treating a small house.

The level of infestation is a determinant of how much you will incur in the tenting process. So much of the chemicals have to be used if an old termite infestation is to be terminated. A new infestation will be cheaper to fumigate.

Another major factor is the company you are working with. Some Termite treatment companies are more expensive than others. You are advised to always compare the available company prices alongside their charges.

You could also look at reviews from people who had their houses fumigated for termites by different companies.

Before beginning the fumigation process, the professional will require you to do some preparation so that you make it easy for him to complete the process successfully. Below are some of the things he requires you to do;

For the process to be a total success, it may take between 24 to 72 hours depending on the size of the house. For those hours, you must stay away from your home since the chemicals used as fumigants are very harmful to your health.

If your entire house is infested with termites, you must allow for the fumigant to get into all the rooms.

Even though the poisonous gas used in the process can penetrate into the room under the locked doors, it will be faster and more effective if you allow the penetration of the gas to be through the entire door. A bigger portion of the room will be covered in a shorter time.

Put the food in containers to avoid the exposure to the fumigant. You are actually advised to take the food with you when you leave.

If that is not possible, you should ensure the containers in which you store the food are airtight such that no chemicals can penetrate through.

Once the chemicals are released into your house, it should stay without escaping through any openings.

This is only possible if you cover any openings on the walls of your house that you may have seen in the past. The professional will also help you trace any other cracks that may let out the gas.

The chemicals used in fumigation will destroy any living thing that is left in the house.

Take your pets with you and cover up any plants too close to your house to avoid any harm that maybe caused by the fumigation chemicals.

You are required to organize your house in such a manner that the professionals fumigating your house can move freely when setting up the tent.

Since the tent will be set such that it covers your house from outside, the satellites and antennae are likely to be broken. They may also be a hindrance to those setting up the tent so ensure you remove them.

Vikane and Zythor are the two main fumigants used in the tenting process. They are not detectable by people during the fumigation process since they are colorless and odorless. These fumigants do not cause any staining, they are non-flammable and non-corrosive.

Chloropicrin, the warning agent released before the fumigant is a colorless liquid that has a very strong odor. When used at low concentrations, it causes tearing of the eye.

This is why it will definitely reveal if there are any people or pets that are still in the house before the fumigator releases the other chemicals.

Apart from the chemicals, the fumigator needs the tents and a hose to channel the chemicals into the tented house.

He or she will also be equipped with chemical detectors which will be used in the end as an assurance that there are no chemicals left in the house. Below are some of the equipment used;

It measures the levels of fumigant concentration when the termite tenting process is ongoing.

They detect any gases that may be leaking from the treatment area.

It is used by the fumigator before he lets you in so that he checks for extremely low concentrations of the chemicals.

When you are through with preparation and the professionals have all necessary tools and chemicals ready, they follow the following steps to complete the fumigation process;

Using Vicane Fumigant

The chemicals used in the fumigation process are very dangerous. This is however in the case where they are used in high concentrations.

In case you or your pets get exposed to high concentrations of the fumigants, you may lose your life.

You are therefore advised to follow all the instructions given by the fumigator.

If you are asked to stay away from your house for two days, stay away since that is good for your health. The fumigators are very careful and they ensure that no person is exposed to the chemicals.

To ensure no person is in the house, the safety measure that fumigators use is releasing the chloropicrin which causes tearing; as mentioned above .Any person or pet in the house that gets exposed to it will definitely get out.

After the fumigation process, there are things you need to do as soon as you move back to your house. Below are some of the requirements after termite fumigation;

One of the things that most termite treatment companies may not tell you is that, after termite fumigation, some insects may suddenly show up.

The most common insects that are seen around the house after the termite tenting process are ants. Ants invade your house at that particular time so that they can feed on the dead termites.

The ants will stay in the galleries that were formerly infested with termites and will only leave once they are certain all the dead termites are cleaned up.

If you wish to keep these ants way, therefore, you should do the cleanup job yourself and ensure ants have nothing to feast on. If the ants are stubborn, you can use ant killer.

There are many other methods that can be used to eliminate termites other than termite tenting. They have been discussed widely in most of the other articles and they include the following;

All these methods are effective but you must ensure that the choice you make on which method to use is not only effective but also economical.

Always remember that some methods require a backup since when used alone they are not effective.

Moreover, some methods are better when used for a small scale infestation than a large scale infestation.

Read more:
Termite Tenting & Fumigation- Cost, Preparation, Safety …

Posted in Termite Fumigation | Comments Off on Termite Tenting & Fumigation- Cost, Preparation, Safety …

No Ideas But in Things: A Practitioners Look at …

Posted: at 2:43 pm

The power of visual stimulation in forming a persuasive argument cannot be understated. Poet Williams Carlos Williams famously wrote, no ideas but in things.2 In writing that line, it can be argued that Dr. Williams was simplifying a universal truth that carries over to modern-day courtrooms: The art of conveying ideas is most effectively done by showing, rather than telling, your audience what it should know. In Williams specific context, he appealed to readers with imagery that conveyed certain feelings or truths.

Similarly, for todays litigators, the best arguments can be displayed through the use of demonstrative evidence and exhibits. Indeed, studies have shown that visual aids used in conjunction with oral presentations may increase understanding and retention levels by as much as 65 percent.3 It is well known that such evidence is generally more effective than a description given by a witness, for it enables the jury, or the court, to see and thereby better understand the question or issue involved.4

In todays technologically savvy society, the influence of visual imagery by use of demonstrative evidence is as powerful and prevalent as ever. The use of this power, however, presents certain obstacles for practitioners. Courts must carefully evaluate issues of admissibility to determine whether demonstrative aids are relevant, are not misleading or confusing, and constitute an accurate and reasonable reproduction of the object involved.5

Significantly, trial court judges are afforded broad discretion as to whether demonstrative exhibits should be presented to a jury and admitted into evidence.6 As always, a well-prepared strategy and supported argument for or against the admissibility of such evidence will go far in tipping the courts discretion toward a favorable result. The trial courts discretion carries great weight, even on appeal, as the trial judges ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.7

First, it is essential to decide whether the use of demonstrative evidence is warranted with regard to satisfying an element of proof, reinforcement, explanation, or illustration of an issue. Next, counsel should decide the medium for presenting the evidence ( e.g., videotape or photograph, diagram or drawing, chart or time line, blowup poster, or original-size exhibit). The chosen medium will prompt the appropriate admissibility and foundation analyses. There are also circumstances when the thoroughness and timing of a foundation can play an important role in jury persuasion.

All too often, the creation of demonstrative evidence becomes a last-minute decision before trial. Fortunately, companies that specialize in trial graphics can usually accommodate an attorneys request within hours. However, the presentation of properly developed and effective demonstrative evidence requires meticulous preparation. This practitioners guide is intended to assist Florida litigators in some of the trickier aspects of presenting and introducing demonstrative evidence before and during trial, as well as precluding the introduction of such evidence through appropriate objections.

The BasicsFirst, real evidence should be distinguished from demonstrative evidence. Demonstrative evidence is generally referred to as crafted representative evidence that serves to assist in the comprehension of certain facts and details. In other words, demonstrative evidence is a medium for presenting testimony, documentary, or real evidence.8

Real evidence is typically referred to as an object that has played a direct role in the incident giving rise to the litigation. For real evidence to be admitted, the object must be authenticated, relevant, and cannot be hearsay unless it falls under an exception.9 With the widespread use of technology in the courtroom, such as digital, video, and computer-generated evidence, demarcations among these categories of evidence tend to blur.

Nevertheless, courts must distinguish demonstrative evidence from mere illustrative aids. Categorizing evidence should be a serious consideration for litigators, as the distinction between aids and evidence is crucial. Failure to make such a distinction can lead to reversible error as, unlike substantive evidence, demonstrative aids are not allowed in the jury room during deliberations.10 Usually, the more accurate the demonstrative exhibits depiction of the facts of the case, the more likely it is to be admitted into evidence.

Maps, charts, or drawings may be useful as aids, but might not be admissible evidence. Despite not being admitted as evidence, demonstrative aids may still be used to demonstrate a pertinent point with the trier of fact. Examples of demonstrative evidence include, but are not limited to, the following: models, maps, videotapes, DVD, film, audiotapes, recordings, photographs, replicas, computer animations, x-rays, handwriting exemplars, time lines, demonstrations, experiments, scientific tests, and original objects ( e.g., weapons and defective products).

Second, in the interest of avoiding potentially case-shattering surprises, pretrial stipulations should be made and motions in limine should be filed and set for hearing well in advance of trial. Obtaining pretrial rulings on admissibility can also save money, considering multidimensional models tend to be quite persuasive, but often include a hefty price tag. Pretrial efforts to determine whether a model can be introduced as evidence or as a demonstrative aid will preemptively confirm whether a party should spend the time and expenses preparing it.

Pretrial practice regarding admissibility is not without its pitfalls. Attorneys should be wary of motions in limine that are tantamount to improper summary judgment motions or motions to dismiss that seek to exclude mention of a dispositive issue and effectively render one party without a case.11 An improper ruling on a motion for summary judgment masquerading as a motion in limine could result in reversible error.12 It is also important to note that, even if a litigator obtains a favorable pretrial order on a motion in limine, the attorney is not yet out of the woods. Some courts view pretrial rulings as entirely tentative,13 meaning that [a]fter evidence is actually adduced at the trial, the judge may suffer a change of mind and decide contrary to a pretrial ruling that evidence may have to be admitted or excluded.14

One hurdle in establishing the admissibility of demonstrative evidence is relevancy.15 Plainly stated, Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence that has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.16 Its state counterpart, F.S. 90.401, offers even less in the way of specifics or guidance, stating: Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.17 This broad, plain language makes for a seemingly simple standard to satisfy, and courts acknowledge having wide discretion in determining this phase of the admissibility process.18

However, complications arise when the statutory reasons to exclude relevant evidence are evaluated. With slight variations, Fed. R. Civ. P. 403 and F.S. 90.403 deem relevant evidence inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.19 Certain exhibits or aids may be only peripherally relevant to some aspect of the case, but are so emotionally charged that introducing them to the jury would be unfairly prejudicial to the objecting party and would only inflame jurors sentiments without proving or disproving any dispositive details of the case.20

In Jackson v. State, 107 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 2012), the Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction and remanded upon finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a videotape recording of an interrogation of the suspect.21 During the interrogation, detectives repeated personal beliefs and attacked the character of the suspect.22 The interrogation did not result in a confession, and was obviously used by the prosecution to elicit sympathy for the victim and create a strong inference of guilt.23 The interrogation video was effectively serving as a mechanism to paint the states picture of the villainous defendant and the heroic victim without providing anything relevant to the issues of the case.

In other criminal cases, if authenticated images offer guidance as to the cause, location, or mechanism of death or injury, or the intent of the defendant, the images typically constitute admissible evidence.24 Conversely, gruesome video footage, photographs, or drawings depicting shocking images of a crime or a victim should not be admitted if those images fail to speak directly to a critical fact at issue and, instead, only infuriate the trier of fact.25 If the images unequivocally address a disputed issue in the case, the balancing test would likely shift in favor of the party seeking admissibility unless there is a less inflammatory, but equally effective, method of proving the material fact.26 That is, unless the probative value of the image is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, the image would be deemed relevant and admitted into evidence.

Photographic images are the most accessible type of demonstrative evidence in personal injury cases. For example, it is no surprise that photographs of a plaintiffs or a victims unsightly wounds tend to resonate with a jury. The photographs may be admissible if the nature and extent of the plaintiffs damages are in dispute. Similarly, in cases involving real property, aerial photographs and plats are useful when overviews of locations and scenes would aid the trier of fact in better understanding the subject property at the center of the litigation.

Relevancy can be easily established when introducing photographs if they assist in comprehending witness or expert witness testimony.27 However, this common law rule is not without its limitations. When the images at issue are merely tangentially relevant to the case, and are so ghastly and inflammatory that they risk tainting the entire jury trial, exclusion of the evidence is appropriate.28 The balancing test also lends itself to judicial discretion. As always, litigators should be armed with strong, analogous caselaw and well-crafted arguments to win the motion or preserve the argument for appeal.

Along with establishing relevancy, litigators must authenticate29 real evidence by confirming with a witness who has personal knowledge that the evidence fairly and accurately represents the object, person, or location at issue. Furthermore, if the demonstrative evidence used is an illustrative aid, the exhibit is subject to the doctrine of substantial similarity.

Substantial SimilarityUnder the doctrine of substantial similarity, a litigator must establish that the demonstrative exhibit he or she intends to use at trial is substantially similar to the object or area in question. Demonstrative evidence must constitute an accurate and reasonable reproduction of the object involved.30 A witness who intends to use a demonstrative aid should first clarify that the exhibit will facilitate the presentation of testimony to the jury.

The substantial similarity doctrine applies when a party seeks to admit prior accidents or occurrences involving the opposing party, in order to show, for example notice, magnitude of the danger involved, the [partys] ability to correct a known defect, the lack of safety for intended uses, strength of a product, the standard of care, and causation.31 The doctrine serves to protect parties against the admission of unfairly prejudicial evidence, evidence which, because it is not substantially similar to the accident or incident at issue, is apt to confuse or mislead the jury.32

This doctrine is stringently applied when litigation strategy calls for analysis of prior occurrences or nonoccurrence for demonstrative purposes. Litigators often introduce prior accidents, and thereby attempt to introduce related objects, such as vehicles or airplane engines, similar to that which allegedly caused injury. The substantial similarity test is strictly adhered to in cases involving such evidence. This strategy is often aimed at indicating that the defendant had notice of particular defect and failed to fix it. Such evidence is admissible only if it pertains to the use of the same type of appliance or equipment under substantially similar conditions.33 The proponent of this type of evidence must meet the burden imposed by the substantial similarity test before the evidence can be admitted.34

In Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 46 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), the Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden when they attempted to admit more than 100 prior incidents involving airplane parts different from those at issue in the case.35 The plaintiffs proffered their experts testimony that the Teledyne airplane engine at issue in the case was similar to that of other manufacturers, and that numerous carburetors shared the same defects as that which caused the subject plane crash.36 The court explained that even if the prior accidents had involved the same Teledyne engine, that fact alone would have been insufficient to admit the prior accidents, considering the expert conceded that failure to change the engine oil when needed could cause the same complications as the alleged defect in the subject engine.37

In the context of the admissibility of nonoccurrence evidence, the First District Court of Appeal set aside the trial courts verdict in Hogan v. Gable, 30 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), after determining that the lack of prior accidents involving a dunking booth was improperly made a focus of the trial. The dunking booth at issue was modified from its original construction to include a wire mesh that plaintiff claimed caused the injury.38 The court stated that the trial court failed to establish whether the dunking booth was in a substantially similar condition before admitting the nonoccurrence evidence.

The doctrine is inapplicable when the offered evidence is pointedly dissimilar and not offered to reenact the accident. 39 In products liability cases, this analysis often requires the court to distinguish between a re-creation, and a pointedly dissimilar demonstration in order to determine whether the evidence is subject to the substantial similarity doctrine. This distinction is noted in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Laliberte, 52 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), a case involving an automobile accident death of a passenger in a Mitsubishi Nativa a sports utility vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the trial judges ruling that videos showing various tests performed on passenger seats of other makes and models were inadmissible.

The Fourth District found that the substantial similarity doctrine was not applicable, given that Mitsubishi admittedly did not attempt to recreate the accident. However, the court ultimately affirmed the trial courts exclusion on the basis of hearsay, prejudice, and lack of foundation and relevancy.40 As the trial judge noted, Mitsubishis demonstrative evidence was not subjected to the substantial similarity test, but its stark differences from the actual accident made it less probative and relevant, as well as highly prejudicial.41

contrast, in a construction accident case, Simmons v. Roorda, 601 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the Second District allowed the testimony of a witness regarding his inspection of a crack in a truss, which was discovered after the accident and was not in the same truss that had collapsed under the plaintiff.42 The trial court originally refused to admit a photograph of the different truss, despite the fact that it was in the same system as the truss that caused the injuries. The appellate court reversed, finding the photograph relevant to the issue of failure to inspect.43

In cases in which the demonstrative aid is a replica or reproduction of the object or accident in question, it must be a reasonably exact reproduction or replica that the jury sees substantially the same object as the original.44 If a litigator intends to use a model as a demonstrative exhibit, he or she should first show that it fairly and accurately represents the original and is built to scale.45 This factual judgment call is also left to the broad discretion of the trial court judge.46 Accordingly, the proffering attorney is expected to give good reason for its acceptance into evidence. 47 The merits of such an argument are especially scrutinized in this context.

In Alston v. Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785, 791 (Fla. 1958), a 1958 case addressing a personal injury claim from an assault and battery, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial courts ruling admitting an axe handle as a replica of the stick used to beat the plaintiff. The court emphasized the witness statement that the replica axe handle was longer than the stick used in the beating, stating: The evidence shows the new handle to have been three feet long and the stick used in the beating to have been about two feet long. It should not have been admitted for this reason.48

Courtroom StuntsThe substantial similarity doctrine also applies to courtroom demonstrations and experiments. This type of demonstrative evidence is the most dramatic, but also the chanciest. The courtroom stunt involving the infamous bloody leather glove in the O.J. Simpson murder trial serves as a stark reminder that blindly agreeing to certain demonstrations could prove devastating to an attorneys case.49 When attempting to introduce a demonstration or experiment, counsel should be prepared to argue against a 403 objection that the demonstrations probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Litigants should also be prepared to beat the argument that the demonstration is so dissimilar to what it purports to demonstrate that it is inadmissible. Many times, the response to such an argument is that the demonstration or experiment does not have to flawlessly resemble the key events;50 rather, only substantial similarity is required.

Courts tend to approach experimental evidence with great caution.51 It is usually deemed inadmissible where the conditions attending the alleged occurrence and the experiment are not shown to be similar.52 However, Florida appellate courts have ruled that dissimilarities between test conditions and conditions surrounding the actual event may go to the weight not the relevancy or materiality of the evidence.53 Therefore, [i]f enough of the obviously important factors are duplicated in the experiment, the court may conclude that the experiment is sufficiently enlightening that it should come into evidence.54 Even a demonstration as dramatic and grisly as plunging a knife into a Styrofoam model of a victims head may survive trial if opposing counsel fails to appropriately request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial.55

Despite caselaw that indicates certain liberal treatment by the courts, the original conditions and circumstances at issue should be duplicated as closely as possible. It is preferable not to go beyond the scope of what is required because the admissibility of this type of evidence resides completely within the discretion of the court. To maximize the probability that the appropriate foundation will be laid, the expert who conducted the experiment or supervised the demonstration should be in court to present the evidence.

Instructions and Other DistractionsInevitably, the admissibility of demonstrative evidence often leads to epic arguments. Such arguments may have the unwanted effect of lending a controversial exhibit more credence than is warranted. For example, in response to an argument between attorneys regarding the admissibility of an exhibit, a judge may wish to compromise and admit the exhibit, but with a limiting instruction to a jury. In fact, in some circumstances, the court is required to instruct the jury on the proper scope of evidence.56

The dangers of unintended emphasis by way of limiting instructions are well documented in civil and criminal cases.57 Ironically, the compromise of admitting evidence and attempting to limit its scope of influence by curative instruction tends to highlight the controversial aspect of the exhibit. The results of confusing jury instructions can be detrimental to a party moving for mistrial, considering the difficulty in making such an argument and, if an appeal is an option, the tough abuse of discretion standard of review.

In Laliberte the trial judge repeatedly used the word defect in a confusing manner while instructing the jurors on an issue regarding the passenger seat during an inspection of two models of the subject vehicle.58 While the jury was examining the vehicles, both passenger seats would not fully recline. In providing the instruction, the judge only meant to convey that the seats were supposed to recline, but for some reason were not operating properly.59 Despite the judges instructions causing at least one juror confusion about the meaning of the word defect, the Fourth District still affirmed the trial courts denial of Misubishis motion for mistrial.60 This was a tough break for the defendant, considering the crux of the plaintiffs case was proving the automobiles defect.

When the evidence at issue is a written document, however, redaction sometimes simplifies this issue by obviating the need for jury instructions. This avoids the quandaries often presented by limiting instructions that may have a reverse effect on the jury. For example, in Zinz v. Concordia Properties, Inc., 694 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), the Fourth District reversed the trial courts admission of a real estate contract containing an invalid indemnification clause in a premises liability action. The court instructed the trial judge that irrelevant portions of the contract, including the prejudicial indemnification clause, should be redacted before being admitted.61

Expert Testimony and ExhibitsThe rules governing demonstrative evidence used to illustrate expert opinion testimony vary slightly from those governing exhibits associated with fact witnesses. For experts, the proponent must first ensure that the exhibit illustrates an experts opinion. If so, the proponent must then lay the foundational requirements necessary to introduce the experts opinion.

The Florida Legislature on July 1, 2013, amended the relevant statute to replace the Frye test with the Daubert test. The Daubert test raises the following issues when evaluating whether to allow an experts testimony: 1) whether an experts testimony is based on sufficient facts; 2) whether the expert used reliable principles methods; 3) and whether those methods were applied correctly to the facts of a case.62

In making this significant change, the legislature in its codification of the federal Daubert test, made clear that pure opinion testimony was no longer admissible.63 Daubert was expanded upon by General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1997), which rendered the Daubert test applicable not only to new or novel scientific evidence, but to all expert opinion testimony.64 The proponent bears the burden of establishing the admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.65

Expert testimony naturally raises the question of admissibility of the demonstrative evidence relied upon to render opinions. Experts exhibits have their own set of rules for laying a foundation, which overlap with the requirements of basic demonstrative exhibits.66 The following steps are necessary for the admission of experts opinions and corresponding exhibits:

(1) [T]he opinion evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) the witness must be qualified as an expert; (3) the opinion evidence must be applied to evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section 90.403, Florida Statutes, the evidence, although technically relevant, must not present a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value.67

To introduce tests, studies, or experiments, the proponent should argue that the expert relied on the proffered tests to render their opinions. The Fourth District also tackled this issue in Laliberte, when it addressed the admissibility of tests conducted by seatbelt design and bio-mechanic experts, which rotated surrogate passengers in vehicles turned on a spit to mimic the rollover accident at issue.68 In affirming the trial judges ruling that the tests were inadmissible, the court noted the lack of an energy management loop necessary to accurately recreate the accident circumstances, and stated that [s]ignificantly, Mitsubishi did not argue that its experts relied on these tests to render their opinions.69

In many cases, the reliance issue is moot due to the obvious role the demonstrative evidence plays in forming the experts opinion. For example, in most personal injury cases, x-ray or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) films are common examples of evidence presented to the court, as well as doctor reports evaluating the films. Technically, x-rays are nothing more than photographic negatives that should be subject to no more than the same objections and admissibility considerations as photographs.

An expert is needed, however, to explain the sometimes complex details in an x-ray. Therefore, more foundational elements are required. Even so, x-rays are typically admitted into evidence.70 Admissibility complications often arise, however, when the radiologist who interpreted the films is not the same witness who is called to authenticate the resulting report in court.71

It should be noted that x-rays can be converted to positive prints that may be easier to use in the courtroom, and that, in some circumstances in which the films cannot be located, testimony regarding such films is subject to the best evidence rule.72 Experts also rely on MRI films or their reports regarding same when testifying.73 Litigators may attempt to impeach a doctor if the clear evidence of injury in the MRI film does not match the contents of the doctors report. Though, doctors should not be held to the exact wording in their reports.74

Finally, the application of Daubert did not affect the admissibility of computer animations or video recordings as demonstrative exhibits whose foundational requirements remain that they must fairly and accurately depict what they purport to show.75 The Second District Court of Appeal addressed such an issue in Smith v. Geico Cas. Co., 127 So. 3d 808, 810-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) . The court held that a time-lapse video was admissible because it fairly and accurately represented the bus accident in question. Moreover, the defense stated that Geicos accident reconstructionist planned to use the video to aid his testimony.76

While especially adroit litigators can often admit this type of evidence with ease, establishing a fair and accurate depiction isnt always simple. The judges decision will depend on the accuracy of the exhibit to the actual facts of the case, as well as the strength of the objections from the other side.

ObjectionsWhen attempting to preclude an exhibit from being entered into evidence, the trial attorney should argue that the exhibit does not truly and accurately portray what it purports to portray. The attorney may also argue that the exhibit is not necessary to assist the witness in explaining her testimony. A hearsay objection may also be made.77 Finally, if the exhibit may mislead the jury or cause confusion or undue prejudice, a motion may be made under F.S. 90.403 in circuit court or Rule 403 in federal court, arguing that the probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

If the objections are pertaining to a model or replica, the usual argument is that the model fails to accurately portray the object or location at issue. The attorney seeking to use the exhibit should counter with the argument that the models are not required to be exact replicas.78 For example, the Mitsubishi Monteros examined by the jurors in Laliberte were not the same automobile in which the plaintiffs son lost his life. Even if the exhibit is not admitted in evidence, the attorney may still use it as a demonstrative aid if the appropriate foundation is met.

Photographs and videos can be attacked as exaggerating or reducing distances, altering apparent height or other measurement, and showing more or less of a scene than is necessary to prevent a misleading depiction. If any of these objections are encountered, the attorney should clarify whether the objections are directed at the weight and credibility of the photograph or whether the attorney is attacking its admissibility. Problems with photographic authenticity have greatly increased since the use of photograph-altering technology has become common. Now, just about anyone with a computer can change a photograph or video to suit their agenda.

With regard to videos, blatantly biased depictions or reenactments will likely be rejected as patently deceptive and prejudicial. 79 The Second District made such a ruling in Campoamor v. Brandon Pest Control, Inc., 721 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), when a video produced by the defense team plainly conflicted with the evidence. The lawsuit alleged that an exterminator was negligent in his application of the pesticide. The video in that case showed the exterminator explaining the proper process for exterminating termites. The court observed the following:

The videotape is essentially a self-serving videotape deposition without the benefit of the opposing party participating. Interspersed throughout the videotape are computer-produced animations depicting the drilling and injection process done in the proper manner. Also appearing at various locations are printed statements beginning with Mr. Morgan does followed by Morgans narration. The videotape concludes with an animation of a workman kneeling and injecting the pesticide in the proper manner. This animation is preceded by the caption, Mr. Morgan injects into drilled holes.80

The court also noted that the trial judge permitted the self-serving video into the jury room during deliberations. This, by itself, would be sufficient to warrant a reversal.81 contrast, digitally enhanced stills can survive objections if they prove to be fair and accurate, and it is shown there is no distortion of the stills on the original videotape.82

Regarding the use of charts, there are certain limitations that should be considered when addressing or making objections.83 In certain cases, a chart of mortality tables used during closing argument should not remain with the jury during deliberations.84 Litigators who are able to persuade a judge to allow demonstrative exhibits into the deliberation room may be fervent to make such a last impression with jury, but should be prepared to eventually try the case over again. The only proper remedy for such an error is a new trial.85

Litigators should make sure that the chart is not merely cumulative of other testimony and not misleading. Moreover, the chart cannot contain inaccuracies, unfairly prejudicial captions, or otherwise inadmissible statements ( e.g., hearsay). If the attorney encounters a seemingly insurmountable objection, he or she can request a limiting instruction ( e.g., that the chart is not to scale or can be viewed for only a limited purpose) or may use the chart solely as a demonstrative aid.86As noted earlier, however, the curative instructions often paradoxically emphasize the harmful aspect of an exhibit to the jury.

ConclusionFew deny the value and effectiveness of demonstrative exhibits. However, some believe that too much technology in the courtroom is counterproductive.87 Exhibits that are too ostentatious or detailed may lack persuasive force the same way a long email written in all capital letters seems over-the-top and ridiculous. In the same vein, using too many demonstrative exhibits in trial may dilute the impact of each individual exhibit.

In our current high-tech world, the use of modern demonstrative aids is sometimes critical to stay competitive in the courtroom. It is much easier and sometimes less expensive to carry a flash drive or a recording device to court than it is to lug around bulky three-dimensional models. Indeed, some litigation experts and practitioners believe that, as litigators, we must accept the free flow of information in the courtroom by way of digital technology and adapt our practice to anticipate its inevitable onslaught.88 Considering the fact that screens pervade all aspects of modern life and are now the main source of information, digital exhibits are becoming essential and should be used in combination with the more traditional, tangible exhibits.

As litigators, we must remember Dr. Williams thesis and carry it out through our courtroom practice. Sometimes, our arguments and our strategies are simply not enough to win. In those times, we must use things to convey our ideas.

1 This practitioners guide was adapted from the 14th chapter in The Florida Bars Florida Civil Trial Practice titled Demonstrative Evidence. Ervin A. Gonzalez,Demonstrative Evidence, Civ. TP FL-CLE 14-1.

2 William Carlos Williams, Paterson (1963). Williams is perhaps best known as the prolific poet who penned the oft-quoted poem, The Red Wheel Barrow.

3 Karen D. Butera, Seeing Is Believing: A Practitioners Guide to the Admissibility of Demonstrative Computer Evidence, 46 Clev. St. L. Rev. 511, 513 (1998).

4 Alston v. Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785, 791 (Fla. 1958).

5 Taylor v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see Fla. Stat. 90.403 (2014).

6 See United States v. Possick, 849 F.2d 332, 339 (8th Cir. 1988); McCoy v. State, 853 So. 2d 396, 405 (Fla. 2003); First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn of Miami v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1950); see also Hunt v. State, 746 So. 2d 559, 561-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Brown v. State, 550 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). It is widely recognized that trial courts have a superior vantage point in ruling on the admissibility of demonstrative exhibits. Accordingly, the trial courts rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087, 1102 (Fla. 2004) (citing Harris v. State, 843 So. 2d 856, 863 (Fla. 2003)).

7 Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 697 (Fla. 2014) (quoting Brooks v. State, 918 So. 2d 181, 188 (Fla. 2005)).

8 Ashley Lipson, Instant Evidence: How to Assess Admissibility When Every Second Counts, 32 The National Legal News Magazine No. 11, 72 (Nov. 1996).

9 See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566, 1580 (11th Cir. 1992) (evaluating the admissibility of a video tape recording of the defendant in jail to determine a fact at issue); Bruce v. McClure, 220 F.2d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 1955) (discussing laying the foundation for the admissibility of real evidence in the context of corporate books).

10 Young v. State, 645 So. 2d 965, 966-67 (Fla. 1994) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.400(a)(4) (emphasis added)). In this criminal case, the Florida Supreme Court stated that a trial court has the discretion to allow the jury to take into the jury room all things received into evidence other than depositions.; but see State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542, 558-59 (N.J. 2013) (cautioning against allowing the jury unfettered access to video-recorded statements). The court in Young referenced the policy underlying the exclusion of depositions from the jury room is to prevent the jury from placing undue emphasis on the deposition over the oral testimony presented at trial. Young, 645 So. 2d at 966-67.

11 Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Brock v. G.D. Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ([T]rial courts should not allow motions in limine to be used as unwritten and unnoticed motions for partial summary judgment or motions to dismiss.).

12 See Rice v. Kelly, 483 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

13 State v. Zenobia, 614 So. 2d 1139, 1139-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

14 Id.

15 See Cave v. State, 660 So. 2d 705, 708 (Fla. 1995) (citing Burns v. State, 609 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1992)) (The test of admissibility of photographic evidence is relevance.).

16 F ed. R. Evid. 401.

17 F la. Stat. 90.401 (2014). Section 90.402 is somehow even less instructive than the federal rule. It reads: All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law. Fla. Stat. 90.402 (2014); see also McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312, 326 (Fla. 2007).

18 Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 291 (Fla. 2009) (A trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence.).

19 Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Fla. Stat. 90.403 (2014).

20 Taylor v. State, 640 So. 2d 1127, 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In Taylor, a criminal case, there was no dispute as to the cause of death or number of blows struck. The inflammatory nature of the distinctly feminine appearance of the clay heads used by the medical examiner to explain the blows, was certain to evoke an emotional response in the minds of the jurors, on a matter that had little or no bearing on the question for the jury, which was the question of appellants sanity at the time of the offense.

21 Jackson, 107 So. 3d at 339, 344.

22 Id. at 341. The court noted that the jury would be inclined to give great weight to the investigating officers statements that Jackson was guilty without a shadow of a doubt, that his denials lacked credibility, and that [the victim] was a rising star in the community who was intent on starting a family.

23 Id. at 339.

24 Bruno v. Moore, 838 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002); Philmore v. State, 820 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2002); Naylor v. State, 748 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

25 Taylor, 640 So. 2d at 1134.

26 See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 698 (Fla. 2014) (affirming trial courts ruling that testimony and diagrams regarding cell tower coverage were relevant to defendants location at the time of the murder and were, accordingly, admissible); Delhall v. State, 95 So. 3d 134, 155 (Fla. 2012); Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277, 291 (Fla. 2009) (ruling that a 9mm cartridge was relevant and properly admitted as there was a clear nexus to defendants charges of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon); Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629, 641 (Fla. 2001) (finding photographs of charred bodies relevant to show the position and location of the bodies when they were found by police and assisted the crime scene technician in describing the crime scene); Pope v. State, 679 So. 2d 710, 713 (Fla. 1996) (holding that photographs of bloody bathroom where the stabbing occurred, the victims bloody clothes, and autopsy photographs were relevant to establish the manner in which the murder was committed and to assist the crime scene technician in explaining the condition of the crime scene when the police arrived).

27 See Larkins v. State, 655 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1995) (affirming admissibility of a photograph depicting a person lying in a pool of blood because it helped explain the medical examiners testimony); Citrus County v. McQuillin, 840 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (allowing photograph of decedent in body bag was not error because it tended to support expert witness theory).

28 See Gomaco Corp. v. Faith, 550 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (finding photographs of the victims nearly severed foot were inadmissible, despite surgeons testimony that the photographs would help him describe the surgical procedure and the extent of the victims injuries); Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (affirming exclusion of photograph of dead child because it would overwhelm the jury, despite plaintiffs argument that the photograph was relevant to the mothers mental pain and suffering).

29 Even when the demonstrative aid being offered into evidence is the actual object at issue, it must be shown that it is substantially the same condition as at the pertinent time. Chamberlain, 881 So. 2d at 1102; Walker v. State, 82 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

30 State v. Duncan, 894 So. 2d 817, 829-831 (citing Brown v. State, 550 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)).

31 Heath v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 126 F.3d at 1396 (quoting Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655, 661 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal citation and footnotes omitted; alteration in original); see Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005).

32 Heath, 126 F.3d at 1396

33 Godfrey v. Precision Airmotive Corp. , 46 So. 3d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Frazier v. Otis Elevator Co., 645 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citations omitted)) (finding the original trial judge erred in admitting evidence of other pallet jack accidents at trial where it was not shown that such accidents involved the use of an Otis pallet jack under substantially similar conditions as plaintiffs accident).

34 Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 971 So. 2d 854, 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), rev. den., 984 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2008).

35 Godfrey, 46 So. 3d at 1022; Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla. 1969); Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Warn Indus. v. Geist, 343 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

36 Godfrey, 46 So. 3d at 1022.

37 Id.

38 Hogan, 30 So. 3d at 574-75 .

39 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Laliberte, 52 So. 3d 31, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Tran v. Toyota Motor Corp., 420 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005)).

40 Id.

41 Id.

See the original post:
No Ideas But in Things: A Practitioners Look at …

Posted in Termites | Comments Off on No Ideas But in Things: A Practitioners Look at …

Pest Control Services in Cleveland, OH – HomeAdvisor.com

Posted: May 21, 2019 at 8:48 am

Project: Control or Eliminate Rodents

Date: 05/21/2019

Rodent Types: Mice

Specific Problem: Nesting

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Within 1 week

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Comment: I am seeing mice l need them gone

Project: Control or Eliminate Small Animals

Date: 05/21/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Is this an emergency?: No

Small Animal Types: Raccoons

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Within 1 week

Project: Pest Control – Bugs & Insects

Date: 05/20/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Type of Insects: Other

Is this an emergency?: No

Type of Control Service: Other

Square footage of home:: Less than 1,000

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Timing is flexible

Comment: I would like to get an estimate for pest control

Project: Control or Eliminate Small Animals

Date: 05/20/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Small Animal Types: Don’t Know

Desired Project Start Date: Today

Comment: dead deer in my back yard died after being hit by a car

Project: Control or Eliminate Rodents

Date: 05/20/2019

Rodent Types: Other Rodents

Specific Problem: Exterior damage, Rodent waste, Nesting, Dangerous rodents

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Within 1 week

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Recurring Service Requested: No

Comment: I would like to get an estimate for raccoons removed from yard.

Project: Control or Relocate Birds or Bats

Date: 05/20/2019

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Timing is flexible

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Recurring Service Requested: No

Comment: I would like to get an estimate for removing a birds nest from the side of a wall.

Project: Control or Relocate Birds or Bats

Date: 05/20/2019

Bird or Bat: Bird

Specific Problem: Noise

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Timing is flexible

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Project: Control or Eliminate Small Animals

Date: 05/20/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Small Animal Types: Don’t Know

Desired Project Start Date: Unsure about timing

Comment: hear animal noise in ceiling

Project: Control or Eliminate Small Animals

Date: 05/20/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Desired Project Start Date: Today

Comment: Squirrels between gutters and siding

Project: Pest Control – Bugs & Insects

Date: 05/20/2019

What kind of location is this?: Home/Residence

Is this an emergency?: No

Request Stage: Ready to Hire

Desired Completion Date: Timing is flexible

Comment: I have ants in my house

Visit link:
Pest Control Services in Cleveland, OH – HomeAdvisor.com

Posted in Termite Exterminator | Comments Off on Pest Control Services in Cleveland, OH – HomeAdvisor.com

Termite Exterminator Pest Control Services Malibu West …

Posted: at 8:48 am

WELCOME TO HANDYTECH TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL SERVICES

Termite is a family owned company with many years of experience in the termite and pest control industry serving residential and commercial customers in Los Angeles, Ventura County, West Hills and Malibu. We have a strong culture rooted in trust, integrity, professionalism, and excellence. Youll find that our team consists of dedicated, driven people who share our enthusiasm and sense of pride.

Mission Statement:””Our mission is to provide satisfactory, reliable and top-quality services in termite and pest control services with having the least impact in the environment in mind.””

Value Statement: We are responsible, accountable, respectful, effective and efficient. We stand by our great quality of work. We promote honesty and integrity in what we do.

Why Choose Handytech Termite and Pest Control Services?

Over our 15 years of experience in the industry, our pest exterminators and technicians are confident that they have the skills, knowledge and equipment to effectively eliminate termites in your property in Los Angeles, West Hills and Malibu. Our experience makes our customers believe that they are being taken care of with the safest possible pest control solutions.

We like to pride ourselves in offering pest and termite control solutions that you need and not what we want you to have, or what we can sell you. We know what works, and what doesn’t work. Our professional exterminators are here to provide you with reliable and effective termite and pest control services Los Angeles, West Hills, Malibu and surrounding areas.

Contact Handytech Termite and Pest Control Services!

Dont let the termites take over your home. For complete termite solutions call 818-213-8943 now! Or send us an email to handytech05@gmail.com. Let our expert pest exterminators reclaim your property today!

We have earned a reputation of delivering exceptional service to all of our customers in Los Angeles, West Hills, Malibu and surrounding areas. Please discover more about us at:

“Both Jack Steiner and Joel Hurtado were a pleasure to work with. Joel even did some extra investigating work and too care of it for me. Handytech were really great with customer service and I highly recommend them.” Matthew D.Yelp verified client

Visit link:
Termite Exterminator Pest Control Services Malibu West …

Posted in Termite Exterminator | Comments Off on Termite Exterminator Pest Control Services Malibu West …

Page 11234..1020..»