You have to have something to be legally liable for, a jury can’t just find against all instruction and logical thought that despite needing to prove duty, breach of duty, injury, and damages, someone is still liable because they can pay. the jury can’t just say “well they must be insured, so it’s fine, we’ll get someone to pay?”
Man, nobody has made this much of a mockery of the legal process since I led mock trial for a bunch of high school juniors a few years back.
See… this is my question though… how will the jury KNOW, or… why would the jury ASSUME that SGFs insurance company would be on the hook for any settlement?
Isn’t there an indemnification waiver? How does that factor in?
At what point does it potentially make common sense for LK to abandon the suit against SGF and refocus on MB and RC?
They won’t. Such information is prejudicial against the defendant.
Liability has nothing to do with how someone will be paying the judgement or if they’ll be paying it. It has to do with correcting a legal wrong committed by one party against another party.
Thanks. That’s EXACTLY what I was wondering.
In principle, I agree, obviously, the entity sued must be found somehow responsible. Did you read my example of the man who gave a woman a venereal disease by having sex with her in his insured car?
If you were on the jury would you have held the vehicle insurance company liable for a million dollar settlement because they guy had sex with her in an insured vehicle?
Hey @CurrentlyHorseless, did you forget that moderation asked for no stacked nested quotes? That request did not say - except for CurrentlyHorseless.
The rest of us are struggling thru, maybe you should try to comply too.
But… in your example, didn’t the woman directly sue the insurance company?
Legal people (who I am so very thankful are here and helping the rest of understand) - is the judge likely to say anything to Bruce about his poorly prepared response?
Likely, but waivers generally stop at the point that a reasonable person would be waiving away their rights in relation to a situation they couldn’t anticipate.
I’d hazard a guess that being on any side of a shooting altercation wasn’t a scenario that a reasonable person would expect when entering into a boarding agreement with a farm.
There may be discussion in chambers about it, but I doubt the judge would mention anything unless they or the law clerk writing the opinion needs clarification or cannot make heads or tails about it.
I love this probably more than a woman of my age ought to.
I also think it would make a great standard response to a few people’s posts.
I did and the finding in that case (which is being appealed) has nothing to do with strict liability. The judgement was awarded in arbitration and the rules on arbitration had since changed, but I read the opinion and it is quite technical, and actually doesn’t admit liability on the part of the insurance company at all, leaving the door open for another appeal.
I think the indemnification waiver involves MB indemnifying SGF. I think that factors into their cross suit against MB.
I don’t think is indemnified wrt claims by LK.
In a sense, LK doesn’t need to “focus on MB of RC”. She’s going to prove she was injured, and it’s up to the jury to apportion the liability among the defendants. Given my perception of the jury’s willingness to make big awards against institutions and insurance companies, I don’t think LK will want SGF out of the suit. SGF wants to say “it was all MB and RC”, but I think it’s actually better for LK if the jury pins more liability on the party with the bigger pockets.
Thank you! I have lurked for a while because I did not feel like I had anything to add to the conversation that wasn’t already eloquently stated by the other legal professionals here, and my experience is not in criminal trials or procedure, so I would not have anything substantial or legally correct to contribute there.
Not really. The judge doesn’t care if your filings are bad quality. It just makes it easier for your opposing counsel.
Only if you do something unethical or abuse the process is the judge likely to do anything other than comment off the record in chambers that the papers were crap.
My thought was that the filing left the judge having to do research to determine if the things said by Bruce are true or not.
Which is a burden on the judge.
I think so, but don’t remember.
In the SGF case, if it’s known that SGF had liability insurance, it’s known that it’s up to the insurance company to defend against the lawsuit or settle.
It’s not believable to me that the jury would not know that SGF had liability insurance on a horse facility.
The judge isn’t Nagel’s paralegal, he can read the filing, read the refutation and evidence provided, and rule on the matter at hand. If the law (or case law) says that you have to make a case for your exception, he’s not going to make that case for one of the parties’ attorneys.
You have not been around the horse world very much, have you?
Anyone who has been around horses for any amount of time knows there are lots of barns who play ‘self insured’ and do not have liability insurance.
I am glad it is being appealed. I thought it was outrageous.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
