Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[eggbutt]

@ZuzusPetals

Ah. He has acknowledged shooting her, so that’s why I was confused. But I hear you on the forensic evidence.

Where has he acknowledged shooting anyone?

[Sdel]

@ZuzusPetals

Ah. He has acknowledged shooting her, so that’s why I was confused. But I hear you on the forensic evidence.

Not exactly. He has acknowledged that he doesn’t remember. There is a bit of a legal parse there in that he cannot aid his defense because he can not remember the event.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@trubandloki

And even I understand that Lauren Kanarek can not implead RGG/JES/SM in the wiretapping counterclaim, only Michael can. So many great instructions posted here on how all that works. I wonder why some people just refuse to read them?

I think some people didn’t do well in English class. Here’s an example:

“Run, Spot, Run!”
some people: The boy was walking up to the dog
teacher: No, the boy is talking. The dog is running
Some people: The boy could have been walking. He didn’t have to run.
teacher: No, SP, The boy is saying “Run, Spot, Run”. The dog is running.
some people: I don’t think he ran all that fast
Teacher: Well, the book doesn’t talk about how fast the dog ran. It just says that the boy told him to run.
some people: Does anyone have any idea about how the dog got there?
Teacher: This is about what the boy said. You need to read what the words say.
Some People: Well its my opinion that the boy can run faster than the dog, and it wasn’t necesarry for the boy to say anything. And where was Jane? Jane should have had the dog on a leash. If the boy gets hit by a car, its Jane’s fault.
Teacher: Jane isn’t in this story. It isn’t about your opinion. I would like you to read the words for what they say, not make up a new story.
Some people: Well, that’s your opinon.

That’s pretty much what its like reading what Some People write, on this thread.

[eggbutt]

What kind of dog was Spot and what gender? I don’t think Spot was a dog at all. Prove it.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@CurrentlyHorseless

She would have been 25 in 2007. How old was she when she got married?

Probably younger than she was when she got divorced. But you never know.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

I do believe that LK’s actions are more than 51% responsible for this mess and for each individual claim against each defendant.

Saying LK will recover nothing if

1. LK is 51% responsible for her injuries vs
2. no individual defendant is at least 51% responsible for her injuries are very different statements.

I can believe statement 1.

I don’t believe statement 2), which is what you are asserting.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@trubandloki

@ZuzusPetals

@ekat

I don’t believe he shot her.

This was up for debate? Not being sarcastic. Genuinely wondering whether there was doubt about it.

I am not sure I understand your question. Have you read the thread(s)?

There is much doubt about who did the shooting.

There is much doubt about “who did the shooting” in these threads.

There was not a “reasonable doubt” in the minds of the jurors, based on their verdict of NGRI wrt to shooting LK.

[Einhorn]

I think if #1 is true, #2 can’t be true at the same time.

It could be that no defendant is found to have had 51% of liability, it can also be true that all together the defense is not found to have 51 % of liability between them.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@ZuzusPetals

Ah. He has acknowledged shooting her, so that’s why I was confused. But I hear you on the forensic evidence.

No he hasn’t.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t understand your current position at all.

Suppose the truth of the issue, as seen by some all seeing entity like God, is that LK was injured and was owed compensation for her damages of $x million. Suppose God literally knows all, and the breakdown of liability is:
10% to LK for not mitigating her damages
25% to RC for providing the gun and handing it to MB
45% to MB for shooting her
20% to SGF for not having stricter policies on controlling guns on the premises.

In my example, if three cases were tried separately, no one defendant would 51% liable even though the three defendants collectively were 90% liable.

Are you saying that in my example, since no one defendant is over 51% liable, LK collects nothing?

@CurrentlyHorseless

Saying LK will recover nothing if

1. LK is 51% responsible for her injuries vs
2. no individual defendant is at least 51% responsible for her injuries are very different statements.

I can believe statement 1.

I don’t believe statement 2), which is what you are asserting.

Bolding mine.

Not even close.

If LK managed to prove in an individual trial that SGF is 51% liable for her claim against SGF ONLY, then she would be awarded judgment based on the claims and statutes governing these things.

Same with MB.

Same with RC.

If this case ever gets out of discovery, and survives motions to dismiss, and makes it all the way to a jury, AND the jury determines that LK proved her claims against each defendant, that’s when they would figure out percentages assigned to each defendant.

And that is when the defendants would argue their cross-claims (not before).

Your problem is you are skipping ahead to the end and missing all the stuff that gets you there.

In NJ, if a defendant was to add another defendant to a case, it’s done by Joinder, within the first 90 days after service, as I mentioned above. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Einhorn

I think if #1 is true, #2 can’t be true at the same time.

It could be that no defendant is found to have had 51% of liability, it can also be true that all together the defense is not found to have 51 % of liability between them.

Exactly. I gave an example in which three defendants collectively were responsible for 90% although no individual defendant was responsible for more than 51%.

@ekat ‘s claim that LK must prove that any individual defendant, such as MB, is more than 51% responsible sounds wrong to me.

[iridedressage]

@ekat - Please tell me if I have this right.

Technically LK has filed 3 civil suits

1. SGF
2. MB
3. RC

Therefore there will be 3 decisions.

That’s what I understand from your post and it makes perfect sense to me.
Do I have that right?
Thanks for all you do here!! I really enjoy and learn from your posts!

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Exactly. I gave an example in which three defendants collectively were responsible for 90% although no individual defendant was responsible for more than 51%.

@ekat ‘s claim that LK must prove that any individual defendant, such as MB, is more than 51% responsible sounds wrong to me.

Because your example is not how lawsuit works. I don’t know how to break it down any clearer.

The jury doesn’t start from the presumption that ANYONE is liable, and how are we going to divide it up, which is what you’re doing.

So, assuming we get past discovery, and motions to dismiss.

LK presents her cases to the jury. The defense does what they do.

The jury goes to deliberate.

The FIRST question is, did LK prove her case against SGF? If NO, SGF wins. If YES, ok, SGF is still in this.

Second question: is SGF responsible for 51% of her claim? If NO, SGF wins, and is done. If YES, SGF is still on the hook.

Rinse and repeat for MB.

And then for RC.

THEN, and ONLY then, does the jury say, we have x number of defendants left, what is their portion of the award?

Does that help?

[ekat]

Yes! Thank you!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

If LK managed to prove in an individual trial that SGF is 51% liable for her claim against SGF ONLY, then she would be awarded judgment based on the claims and statutes governing these things.

Same with MB.

Same with RC.

Well of course if LK proved in an individual trial against SGF that SGF is 51% responsible, she would collect. Any individual defendant being at least 51% responsible is sufficient for her to recover damages.

But is it necessary?

The question is whether it is necessary for her to establish that any individual defendant is at least 51% responsible, which is what you asserted.

Please respond to my example, in which none of the three defendants is over 51% responsible but the three collectively are 90% responsible. Does MB escape liability because he is 45% responsible but not 51% responsible?

ETA. Suppose each defendant is considered separately, as you claim. You’re now claiming that any individual defendant who can establish their responsibility is less than 51% is excused entirely.

After this sequential process, there can be either zero or one defendant found to have at least 51% responsibility, correct? So if MB is found to have 60% responsibility, zero monetary award is assessed against SGF and RC?

This would suggest that the interests of the SGF lawyers and MBs are very much in conflict. The greater the responsibility attributed to MB, the more likely it is that SGF has no damages assessed against it.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Please respond to my example, in which none of the three defendants is over 51% responsible but the three collectively are 90% responsible. Does MB escape liability because he is 45% responsible but not 51% responsible?

I can’t. Because that’s not how it works.

[roseymare]

At one point we drove nine hours only to find it had been dropped at the last minute.

When it finally went to trial hubby had to go by himself. I wasn’t there to keep him out of “trouble” with his sarcastic ways. IE he tripped in the holding room and looked up and saw the plaintiffs lawyer reaching for something in his suit coat pocket. Out of his mouth came these words…“it’s ok I don’t need your business cardI already have a lawyer”. Luckily all of the lawyers laughed.

[iridedressage]

There is no “collectively”, right?

[DownYonder]

@Ambitious_Kate

I think some people didn’t do well in English class. Here’s an example:

“Run, Spot, Run!”
some people: The boy was walking up to the dog
teacher: No, the boy is talking. The dog is running
Some people: The boy could have been walking. He didn’t have to run.
teacher: No, SP, The boy is saying “Run, Spot, Run”. The dog is running.
some people: I don’t think he ran all that fast
Teacher: Well, the book doesn’t talk about how fast the dog ran. It just says that the boy told him to run.
some people: Does anyone have any idea about how the dog got there?
Teacher: This is about what the boy said. You need to read what the words say.
Some People: Well its my opinion that the boy can run faster than the dog, and it wasn’t necesarry for the boy to say anything. And where was Jane? Jane should have had the dog on a leash. If the boy gets hit by a car, its Jane’s fault.
Teacher: Jane isn’t in this story. It isn’t about your opinion. I would like you to read the words for what they say, not make up a new story.
Some people: Well, that’s your opinon.

That’s pretty much what its like reading what Some People write, on this thread.

The best summation, ever!

[ekat]

@iridedressage

There is no “collectively”, right?

Correct.