I was working on this really long answer and I was sure I broke the forum, lol.
First, you need to look at what the lawsuit and counterclaim alleges:
LK’s claims re: MB
- Her first claim is strict liability, which basically means a defendant is held fully liable for any injury sustained by another party regardless of whether the injury was intended.
- Negligence: MB et al had a duty to provide a safe and sure location for the guests, business invitees, and social invitees, and/or residents and failed to do so.
- Assault and Battery (the shooting)
- Negligent Infliction of emotional distress
- Intentional Infliction of emotional distress - she claims he bullied, threatened, harassed her, Knowing it would cause injury
MB’s Defenses:
- His first defense is just a basic denial of liability
- Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, should have no liability to Plaintiff for her injuries, by reason of Barisone’s mental state and/or condition which included but was not limited to battered-person-syndrome cause by Plaintiff’s campaign of emotional battery against Defendant and/or persons in his care. Direct Quote because he says it well.
- This is where he raises self defense, or defense of others “including adults, teenagers, children and/or horses” at the farm.
- LK’s injuries are a direct result of her own acts and omissions, negligence, and recklessness.
- “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by her own intervening intentional, reckless, malicious, and/or negligent acts, actions and/or omissions.”
- LK’s claims must be reduced by the principals of comparative negligence/comparative fault
- LK’s claims are barred due to waiver, estoppel, etc
- LK’s injuries are the results of acts and omissions by LK or a third party
- LK’s injuries are the result of LK’s failure to act reasonably, timely, and/or appropriately.
- LK’s injuries are the result of unreasonable failure to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities; her unreasonable failure to avoid harm; and/or her unreasonable failure to mitigate injury or harm
- MB owes no duty to LK, based on LK’s actions
- LK’s injuries were not caused by MB
- LK assumed the risk for the conduct that led to the incident.
I consolidated a couple and skipped a couple that are not that pertinent
MB’s Counter Claim:
- LK was negligent towards MB, causing injuries and severe stress
- This is actually about her use of Social Media. LK “intentionally inflicted severe emotional distress upon Barisone; maliciously inflicted severe emotional distress upon Barisone; recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress upon Barisone”
- LK, by early August, knew or should have known that MB was in an injured mental state, and owed a duty to stop her continued harassment, and didn’t.
LK’s Defense:
- A whole lot of “Denied”
- The counterclaim is unconstitutional.
- Counterclaim is barred by waiver or estoppel (estoppel - your actions are inconsistent with your defense, essentially)
- Counterclaim is barred by statute of comparative negligence
- MB failed to mitigate his damages
- Counterclaim is barred by doctrine of unclean hands(I suck, but you suck worse)
- Counterclaim fails to join an “indispensable party”. 2 guesses on who LK plans to throw under the bus.
LK is saying MB (and RC and SGF) are responsible for her physical damages, her loss of wages, etc, and her emotional distress.
MB is saying no, LK is responsible for all of that, plus what she did to me, and if I did anything at all, she is comparatively at fault, and I was defending myself and my family.
So, what’s going to come into play:
They both have to prove each other had a duty to the other one based on their claims.
They both have to prove a breach of duty. (I’m going out on a limb here, but illegal recordings and ninjas breaches something).
They suffered financial losses. We’ve discussed that already.
There were injuries. Medical docs prove that (or not).
LK is suing for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. You need documented, usually medical or therapeutic proof of that.
MB gave us a preview of his claim of lack of competency caused by LK and emotional distress in the criminal trial.
So, whose evidence outweighs the other and is more credible is what 6 random jurors are going to decide.
Yes, the jury could decide LK had some injuries and is owed some compensation. They could also, simultaneously decide “Finish the Bastard” worked and MB is owed compensation. Or a whole lot of other possibilities.
(I did say it was going to be a long answer. Sorry)