You be the jury...

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury#post_3507747
Flower, don't you think that a business owner has a responsibility to the local public to take some action to hire, supervise and/or maintain an appropriate staff in the business?... regardless of what type of business he's in. This is much broader than the duty that this business owed to Mr. Smith, but what about the neighbors, and their children who may live in and around the community. Are you suggesting that you have no problem with someone hiring people he knows to be dangerous? Because the evidence here is clear that he knew about the violence of this individual from several different sources.
You're sentiments about Mr. Smith may be echoed by the jury. Did his actions in going to this place in the middle of the night amount to negligence on his part? It's possible and, if so, that amount of fault would be allocated to him and any damages would be reduced by his percentage of fault.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have a very good judge, and am in Detroit (which tends to lean more towards Plaintiffs than other areas). But the case isn't perfect and if it went up to the court of appeals, they may not like this type of case.
Also, as an aside, the bar has filed its own motion to dismiss this case claiming that they should have no liability. I filed a brilliant response of course

, and the motion will be heard next Friday. It's possible, although I think unlikely, that the judge could kick the whole thing next week.
Okay.... has the neighbors been affected by the strip club workers in the past? Most strip clubs are on the open main streets, not next door where little Suzy catches the bus. Which by the way is why many neighborhoods refuse to allow strip clubs and casinos to set up too close to the residential areas....they are magnets for the bad to the bone folks.
Lots of serial killers had regular jobs, in regular neighborhoods...if a worker goes off on the folks next door, is that the owners fault for hiring the crazy guy to start with without a full drug screening, and a mental evaluation? The only reason businesses have any kind of background checks are along the areas that concern the business..otherwise isn't the owner guilty of discrimination or violation of privacy? If Mr. Smith knew about the dangerous individual from different sources...he kind of walked into it with eyes wide shut.
Has anyone asked the owner why he hired Mr Manager to start with? Maybe the owner gave Mr. Manager a job because he needed a tough guy to control his seedy business (maybe some liability could be derived), or maybe he believed everyone deserves a second chance...or maybe he owed Mr manager a favor and gave him a job....both of the later examples would exonerate him in my eyes as a juror anyway.
In the end I think it boils down to which lawyer is the best at arguing their point....frankly, if the strip club is forced to close because they got sued so bad they couldn't keep the doors open, would be a kindness to the community.... Mr Smith has at least learned to be afraid of such places...it's a win, win IMO.
LOL...be sure to keep us informed, I can hardly wait to see how it all turns out.

 

[reefraff]

I'd have a lot of questions and blanks to be filled in myself. If I was asked for find for the plaintiff I probably would but if I had to assign blame I'd probably throw 50 percent at the plaintiff, he should have known better and just having the little bit of info we've seen here I am not too sure he isn't on the shady side himself.

 

[crimzy]

It's definitely going to be a challenge. There are intangibles that come into play in front of a jury. Aim going to blow up the gruesome pictures to show the jury the extent of the injury, as opposed to just tell them. Moreover I have to make the jury like me as much or more than they like my client. There are a few tricks I've learned over the years to bond with the jury. This will have a significant affect on the result.
At the end of the day I could end up with a loser case. I am optimistic because there is great damages and moderate liability but I generally have great success in front of juries. If we do end up with an unfavorable result, then I'll have wasted hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars in costs for nothing. But if we hit this could end up great. Alas... Contingency fees are a gamble. You have be careful about which to take without out-of-pocket fees.

 

[crimzy]

I respect all of the feedback but daaaaammmmnnn... We have some cynical folks here on swf. The general consensus appears to be that this was an acceptable way to run a business but that the victim must be a bad guy.
Of course this is a different way to assess a situation than sitting in a jury box, listening to a man describe being tortured and hearing police officers and witnesses testify about the violence and dangers connected with this business.
But I do also wonder if people don't really like the concepts of lawsuits or lawyers in general. Everyone talks about the crazy, frivolous suits that gets much attention but don't forget about the other side of the coin. Civil litigation provides checks and balances where there otherwise aren't any. Lawsuits are the reasons why doctors are especially careful in taking care of your family, why food manufacturers make sure that contaminants don't get into our food, and make sure that properties are not maintained in extremely dangerous conditions.
A jury should award damages for my client. It's not only to compensate him for what's been done, but it sends a message to the business owner that the people will not allow it to maintain places of violence and abuse in their community. A good lawyer will make a lot of money for himself and his clients, but will also ensure that the cops won't beat young minority kids to death, that you're children's school will do anything possible to keep them safe. In short, plaintiffs lawyers create a standard of care in virtually every realm. Imagine your city, neighborhood, employers, etc if there was no minimum standard of care. This jury should find in our favor to tell this business that the hiring and maintaining of a dangerous person is unacceptable. They should render a verdict in our favor because it makes their community a better place.

 

[reefraff]

You have to consider the way you are laying this out here.
The guy shows up thinking he's going to do a remodel job and ends up being tortured. What's not to be sympathetic about? THEN you start filling in the blanks. Used to work there, turned them into the cops for illegal activity. Then mentioned he showed up a 3AM. That doesn't pass the smell test. You have your work cut out for you. At a minimum it shows a severe lack of judgement.

 

[crimzy]

He went there to pick up money for work he had already done. And maybe it has something to do with how the situation was laid out. I couldn't get all the facts into a brief recap on here. After all, I anticipate a trial that lasts a week or more so there better be more than just the few paragraphs here. But bear in mind that the facts are undisputed. There has been no claim nor will any evidence be presented to suggest that my client engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever... He didn't.
I do think there's a tendency to distrust lawyers or lawsuits. That's ok until you need something... Then you're in my office crying on my shoulder.
But this discussion has given me some excellent approaches to handling this matter. Bring on that jury... I can't guarantee what could happen if this went up on appeal. But I KNOW how to handle that jury...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3507775
He went there to pick up money for work he had already done. And maybe it has something to do with how the situation was laid out. I couldn't get all the facts into a brief recap on here. After all, I anticipate a trial that lasts a week or more so there better be more than just the few paragraphs here. But bear in mind that the facts are undisputed. There has been no claim nor will any evidence be presented to suggest that my client engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever... He didn't.
I do think there's a tendency to distrust lawyers or lawsuits. That's ok until you need something... Then you're in my office crying on my shoulder.
But this discussion has given me some excellent approaches to handling this matter. Bring on that jury... I can't guarantee what could happen if this went up on appeal. But I KNOW how to handle that jury...
That was the point I tried to make in my last post. I am sure you'll lay this out a lot different in court. Here it reads he showed up a 3 to talk about the job rather than was told that was when he could pick up money for work already done. (I guess they were going to pay him in singles)
I dunno, People SAY they distrust lawyers and don't like lawsuits but the overwhelming results of jury trials seems to indicate the opposite. My wife spent her career working for a defense firm and for the last 7 years has worked for the litigation coordination arm of a large insurance company that does medical malpractice coverage. You wouldn't believe some of the stories I've heard. A lot of what she does now is risk and claims management. Lawsuits are alive and thriving in that field anyway.

 

[crimzy]

People don't like OTHER peoples' lawsuits.
Interesting note though... it seems that the why of it is a common theme. While this is not a major issue for me, seems like it is to the audience. Maybe the jury needs this question answered in order to trust my client... hmmm...

 

[ironeagle2006]

Could have been that was when that the Manager told him to come and Pick up his Money also. Think about when is a Strip Club going to have the MOST Cash on hand when it Closes after Last Call. However the Actions of the Manager and his Thugs however crossed over into a realm that even a Solider would have been found guilty of Torture. Also the Manager would not have done something like that more than Likely without the OWNER Knowing about it. See Criminal Activity like what happened like this case opens a Huge can of worms for the Owner he is Letting Drugs and other ILLEGAL activity go on in his Club so to shut up someone he might have said SHUT THIS GUY UP.

 

[beth]

I served in a murder trail recently and my own feeling is that when you are actually a juror the instructions given to you by the judge, which is all the time reinforced by the lawyers, is that pre-conceived notions have no place in the jury. You stick to the facts, evidence, and info presented to you during the trail. And, even as some jurors deliberate, and may get off track thinking about pre-conceived notions, other jurors are quick to remind what our duty is as defined by the judge.
Not trusting lawyers or lawsuits would be an excuse that a potential juror will need to advise the judge of during the picking process. When the judge asks if you are incapable of making a fair decision based on the facts presented in the trail because of your bias, if your answer is "yes", then you will be excluded as a juror.

 

[btldreef]

I do think that the owner is to blame here. He knew the violent tendencies of this manager and still kept him on staff. That's a ticking time bomb, if you ask me.
You will have some explaining to do as to why your client was there at 3am. Given that its a bar, it's likely that's when they had the cash. But whatever the reason that he went there so late (or early) needs to be spelled out.
I would definitely play on the jurors heart strings with the struggling single dad card. For me, if I were part of the jury, that would make it a little easier for me to understand why your client would want any involvement with this establishment. Because for me, the biggest question is why was your client still involving himself with this place knowing the issues there were. This is the one thing that you're going to have an issue with. Was the owner at fault? Yes. But to what extent? He knew the manager was violent, but so did your client...

 

[crimzy]

I will analogize this situation to the lawsuit by the victims of Jerry Sandusky against Penn State. That was an employer being sued for the intentional assault by an employee. Those suits settled for millions. What do you all think of those cases?

 

[crimzy]

I will analogize this situation to the lawsuit by the victims of Jerry Sandusky against Penn State. That was an employer being sued for the intentional assault by an employee. Those suits settled for millions. What do you all think of those cases?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508265
I will analogize this situation to the lawsuit by the victims of Jerry Sandusky against Penn State. That was an employer being sued for the intentional assault by an employee. Those suits settled for millions. What do you all think of those cases?
Not really the same. His employer had received reports of his illegal actions and they did nothing. In your case there was a history of fighting, is that really that out of the ordinary for that particular occupation?

 

[ironeagle2006]

Crimzy look up Ashton Vs Knight to see what happens when an Employer tried to cover up a Traffic accident in KS and Ordered the Driver of the Truck to Drive Nonstop to CA and Lets just say did everything Short of Burning the Truck to the Frame to hide evidence. Well a Judge in TX hammered them with Sanctions so Severe that their Insurance and Secondary Insurer BOTH told Knight that They are ON THEIR OWN for the Damages Incurred. When a Judge Removes your Defense from your Actions in a Civil case Plus Tells the Plaintiff that Punitive Damages can NOW be Sought and a few other things you know your SCREWED.
Also the Fact in your case that the Attackers already agreed to Plead Guilty to Criminal Charges is going to make the Owners appeal HARD why the Crime happened at his Place and most Cases that go to Civil after a Criminal Case that are Appealed are harder to Overturn found that one out from a Classmate that became a Lawyer in MA. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020110224A09.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
There is the link for that case Enjoy reading that one.

 

[beaslbob]

While civil suits only require a preponderance of the evidence, collecting on any judgement would be the real problem.
Obviously the bar doesn't have this type of behavior as acceptable but with several previous complaints against the manager and his continued employment it would seem the inaction of not fireing the manager would hold the bar/ owners/managers responsible.
So judgement rendered, the bar goes bankrupt and no monies ever collected.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508270
Not really the same. His employer had received reports of his illegal actions and they did nothing. In your case there was a history of fighting, is that really that out of the ordinary for that particular occupation?
Well... a history of the use of guns and brass knuckles against patrons. Not to mention that I have 2 previous managers and another employee who will testify that the manager was known and had been observed using excessive force (ie. attacking customers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508277
Crimzy look up Ashton Vs Knight to see what happens when an Employer tried to cover up a Traffic accident in KS and Ordered the Driver of the Truck to Drive Nonstop to CA and Lets just say did everything Short of Burning the Truck to the Frame to hide evidence. Well a Judge in TX hammered them with Sanctions so Severe that their Insurance and Secondary Insurer BOTH told Knight that They are ON THEIR OWN for the Damages Incurred. When a Judge Removes your Defense from your Actions in a Civil case Plus Tells the Plaintiff that Punitive Damages can NOW be Sought and a few other things you know your SCREWED.
Also the Fact in your case that the Attackers already agreed to Plead Guilty to Criminal Charges is going to make the Owners appeal HARD why the Crime happened at his Place and most Cases that go to Civil after a Criminal Case that are Appealed are harder to Overturn found that one out from a Classmate that became a Lawyer in MA. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020110224A09.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
There is the link for that case Enjoy reading that one.
Thank you... I will review those matters tonight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508280
While civil suits only require a preponderance of the evidence, collecting on any judgement would be the real problem.
Obviously the bar doesn't have this type of behavior as acceptable but with several previous complaints against the manager and his continued employment it would seem the inaction of not fireing the manager would hold the bar/ owners/managers responsible.
So judgement rendered, the bar goes bankrupt and no monies ever collected.
There is an insurance company who, at this point, has been ordered to provide coverage. If there wasn't, I would never have gotten into this fight against a simple corporate shell.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508290
Well... a history of the use of guns and brass knuckles against patrons. Not to mention that I have 2 previous managers and another employee who will testify that the manager was known and had been observed using excessive force (ie. attacking customers).
Don't get me wrong, I still think the bar is responsible. I just don't think there is a shock factor here like there was in the Penn case. Imagine that, tittybar bouncers and managers don't fight fair. I've know a couple ex bouncers. They didn't fight fair either. Speaking for myself that would affect the amount I would award the victim if asked. Now If the employees had been arrested for using brass knuckles so the owner 100 percent sure knew this was being done by his employees in his club that would make a huge difference for what that's worth.
Still on a simple guilty or innocent question I would be a solid guilty.
A friend I used to work with was foreman of the jury for a case my wife's firm defended (yes, he disclosed that he worked with an employees spouse). They came back with a verdict for the plaintiff. They also had to assign responsibility. I don't remember the exact percentages but I think this is right. Because the jury found that the plaintiff was found 45% at fault she collected NOTHING. Being found over 40 percent at fault prohibits the plaintiff from collecting damages, AND THE JURY ISN'T INFORMED OF THAT FACT.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/394134/you-be-the-jury/20#post_3508296
A friend I used to work with was foreman of the jury for a case my wife's firm defended (yes, he disclosed that he worked with an employees spouse). They came back with a verdict for the plaintiff. They also had to assign responsibility. I don't remember the exact percentages but I think this is right. Because the jury found that the plaintiff was found 45% at fault she collected NOTHING. Being found over 40 percent at fault prohibits the plaintiff from collecting damages, AND THE JURY ISN'T INFORMED OF THAT FACT.
This sounds like a contributory negligence state, where if it can be shown that the Plaintiff is negligent in his conduct, then he gets nothing. Michigan is a comparative negligence state, which means that any recovery by a plaintiff is reduced by the percentage of his own fault. As such, if the jury finds that the plaintiff carries 50% or more of the blame then he gets nothing, but anything less results in a reduction only. There probably will be an element of comparative negligence in my case.

 

[theclemsonkid]

If I were a jury member, from what you have stated... I would feel fairly confident in saying that yes, the guy had enough prior violent incidents, that the owner should have known better than to keep him. I think you should win this one pretty easily...