I should know better than to think I know enough about a lawsuit to comment from reports in a newspaper, but this one caught my eye. A 2005 Fort Wayne festival at the attendee was shot by an unknown gunman. The attendee is now suing the midway company and the Memorial Coliseum’s board of trustees.
Without, as I said, knowing anything about the situation, I predict that the lawsuit will end up being a litany of coulda, shoulda, woulda’s from the plaintiff. Defendants are on the business end of a lawsuit because: a) plaintiff can’t find the wrongdoer; and b) the wrongdoer probably didn’t have any money anyway.
Likely as not, the defendants didn’t do anything particularly blameworthy but the plaintiff will list a bunch of stuff that, in hindsight, the defendants could have done better. The main goal will be to throw enough dust in the air to persuade a judge not to throw the case out of court and get it to a jury. In the meantime, the defendants will spend a bunch of money litigating the case; and then have to think long and hard about submitting to the potentially arbitrary decisions of a jury. Fear of what a jury might do is based upon the idea that plaintiff is an individual who suffered a tangible injury whereas the defendants are disembodied corporations (there is an oxymoron in there somewhere) with lots of money and/or healthy insurance policies.
But, like I say, I don’t know anything about this case. Maybe the Memorial Coliseum and the midway company got together to hand out free handguns and liquor before the plaintiff got shot.
Yes, these cases are very frustrating. It’s always possible in hindsight to conceive of any number of ways in which an entity might prevent the criminal activity of a third party. I was able to get a good result in a reported case last year in one of these situations, but the connection between my client and the assailant was far more remote than in this situation (based on what little we know). Unfortunately, most appellate precdent seems to be trending against the “deep pockets.”
Just another pet peeve I’ll go ahead and mention. I respect the adversarial process, and I think it is ultimately healthy. But, I get annoyed by attorneys who feign personal, emotional investment in their clients’ cases.
“I’m appalled by your client’s behavior.”
Spare me. I wasn’t there. You (meaning the hypothetical attorney) weren’t there. If your client is appalled, fine. You, like me, are a hired gun whose legal expertise is for sale. Unlike me, however, your outrage is also apparently for sale.
Don’t get me wrong, there are occasionally very appalling cases where even a jaded lawyer gets riled up. But not every case as appears to default setting for a certain subset of attorneys.
The law is reason unaffected by desire, correct?
I’ve heard Justice described as the combination of Truth and Courage with an absence of Love. But that was in the 80s video game Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, so my source may be suspect.
lol, I LOVED that game! The part where you built your character based on how you answered questions was great.
if only paul helmke, and dc vs heller and the brady bunch had succeeded and taken all our guns away, this might not have happened. of course, then it would have been an axe, a knife, an skilet( true story0 skillet killer) a spear, a stick ,a brick a rock, or so on.
if only we had a kzillion cops on every corner, and such- all with take home cop cars, of course, we could stop the carnage, in our streets. and he should have been wearing a helmet.
just ask senator wyss.
i alswya carry a gun, or knife, or wear a vest- just in case- you never know when that ounce of prevention will save you a pound of cure. shoot first- its yoru constitutional right. just make sure you hit your target, and not collateral damage. oh the humanity! giggle