There was a case involving a dispute in the ownership of SGF. There was some interesting comments from Tarshis about MB’s record keeping prowess. However the settlement on that was confidential.
4 Likes
Continued from my post above - I know of a landmark personal injury case were the defendants collected for infliction of emotional distress without clear-cut, obvious physical symptoms. (Airplane incident where due to a pilot error, the plane plunged towards earth but didn’t crash. Passengers had a significant period of time were the plane was in a steep dive and they thought they were going to die.)
But if I remember correctly, the key to the case was the negligence of the pilots causing the plunge towards earth.
So back to LK and SCF - even if there was a duty, where’s the negligence in the breach of duty?
3 Likes
Good point - and his bio indicates that he may possibly [edited by me] have been retained to represent SGF’s insurance carrier.
https://www.spsk.com/mark-k-silver
And I’m not surprised he has a way with words - he not only attended George Washington University on a theater scholarship, he has a Master’s Degree in Communication.
Edited to add that I just saw this on his bio:
- Panel member, “Are We Still the Good Guys? A Discussion of How to Combat a Jury’s Desire to Award Punitive Damages,” 2022 Midyear Meeting of the International Association of Defense Counsel, February 22, 2022
Whoa.
20 Likes
I think this is kind of the crux of her claims. She is claiming SGF should have known MB was a violent and unstable person with a history. They claim to have witnesses to this effect.
I hope those witnesses aren’t too afraid to witness in the civil trial like they were for the criminal one. Because honestly between training with MB for at least a year before the incident occurred and connecting statements of LK “thinking she could handle him”….she had ample opportunity to recognize his nature and leave. By staying, it is an unspoken acknowledgment of acceptance of the risks posed by MB’s nature.
ETA bolding for clarity.
19 Likes
Thank you very much!
1 Like
You’re welcome. I greatly appreciate the legal knowledge you have stated here over the last few years/months. You have infinitely more patience and tenacity than I do, which is why I have refrained from posting until now.
15 Likes
Hmmmmmm. Despite him having an unblemished record and being highly successful in his chosen field. And despite her having a much more colorful background. And the whole refusal to leave thing.
I am quite sure people standing around at a horse show gossiping said things like “OMG, I heard he was awful to Susie Working Student.” That’s a long, long, way to being willing to testify, under oath to a first person witnessing of violent/unstable behavior. In fact, I would bet that all those “witnesses” are of the “friend of a friend” type, or as the legal peeps like to say, hearsay witnesses.
More fun:
SGF attorney: If the situation was as volatile as you say, why didn’t you leave?
LK: I thought I could handle him. I’m a bad ass, no one messes with me and gets away with it.
SGF attorney: So even though you were asked to leave, and even though you knew the situation was volatile, you made the decision to stay? Because you thought you could handle it?
LK: Yes.
SGF: But you think someone else should be liable for the consequences of your decision to stay?
Damn, makes me want to go to law school.
35 Likes
I can’t imagine LK has turned anything over to anyone.
7 Likes
SGF is alleging two things: strict liability and negligent liability.
Here’s that portion from the original complaint, where they are claiming that the presence of the gun makes them strictly liable:
And here’s how SGF feels about that claim as of this morning:
To be quite frank, I’m not sure how SGF had a duty to not allow guns on the property. I could be wrong though.
As far as negligent liability, here’s their claim, which actually, on its face, makes some sense:
And…they are still waiting for discovery to determine how they are going to defend that portion of the claim, and they appear to be waiting for the deposition to shed some light on what exactly they are supposed to defend.
So, it’s still about clear as mud, isn’t it?
And you’re right about that comparative negligence. That may be part of the questions they have for the plaintiff.
13 Likes
I think SGF is still wondering that same question.
2 Likes
I guess that’s all part of those solid-gold bombshells Lauren’s been posting about all over the internet for three years, including 2-3 weeks ago on YouTube comments. Maybe we will finally get to hear them!
12 Likes
Thank you. That’s incredibly helpful.
I love the language “ultra-hazardous.” I have a handful of guns in my locked gun closet. Does that mean I’m engaging in ultra-hazardous activity?
I also love “ripe for Summary Judgment” which is apparently lawyer talk for “Can you believe this BS?”
22 Likes
Thank you very much. 
3 Likes
As well as all the social media posts she made prior to the shooting (remember the bada$$ manifesto?) detailing how she was “locked and loaded”. This woman terrorized a group of people with her sidekick, enjoyed it, planned it, and the jury will see that as clearly as most of us do. The question in my mind is how many others will be found to be involved and complicit in her long history of mentally abusing others.
Then I suspect there might be a deep dive into her “income”. It (the trial) appears to be right up Law & Crime Network’s alley!!!
All that said, could there be any charges brought against LK &/or RG at this late date?
14 Likes
You’re welcome! And yes, you are ultra-hazardous. Who knew? But if you are, I am as well.
5 Likes
It is interesting, because the issues with the house were understood and in part caused by RG’s renovation work. LK’s social media acknowledges she was well informed of the condition of the house she was living in.
Also interesting because the gun, in the few days leading up to the shooting was kept more or less in the compliance of the law: in the safe. We never actually heard what RC’s charges/plea deal ended up with: but I think there is a potential hole there because the gun charges rely on the concept of him having taken the gun out of the safe to commit the shooting If that can be called into doubt by more evidence than was allowed at the criminal trial……
12 Likes
If you are a gun owner, can you claim that someone else allowing guns on their property is negligent? Especially if the guns were stored in a safe (while you kept at least 1 of your guns in a purse).
18 Likes
Very, very interesting question.
5 Likes
Sorry, @trubandloki, I didn’t see your post until I saw the mods response to it, as I have you on ignore.
As the mods have clarified for you, their original statement was that some degree of nested quotes was fine, as long as it didn’t create excessively long chains of nested quotes. They never said “no nested quotes”.
I continue to think that one or two short quotes in a chain provides useful context to a post. I just learned yesterday how to use highlighting to snip a smaller section of a quote or quote chain and will use that technique going forward. When I was using the default quote function that previously resulted in the overly long chains, it was because I didn’t know the highlight technique at the time. I never did it just to annoy.
1 Like
Right. But that opens a big 'ol door to: what created the unsafe environment? A safe with guns in it? Or a toxic tenant who refused to leave, made malicious complaints to the building inspector, fire marshall, SS and through them CPS, installed illegal recording devices, harassed owners and customers and inspired the hiring of private security? Hmmmmmm. Which would I be more afraid of?
17 Likes
