He acknowledged that he was TOLD that he shot her. He also stated (in the 48 Hours interview) that he had no memory of it.
And of course, the story that he shot her came from two lying drug addict grifters who had been harassing and tormenting him for days and days and days - and whom the vaunted police and DA’s office chose to believe. 
So - for the lawyers in the room, procedural question(s): LK has civil suit against MB, among others. MB has civil suit against LK. Assuming we ever get that far, Which one is tried first? Are they connected? Same jury? How does this mess work?
Thank you SO much ekat! You break this stuff down to easy to chew little pieces. Repeatedly. You have the patience of Jobe.
OK. I think you’re wrong in your claim that LK needs to establish that any one defendant is more than 51% responsible in order to collect.
The police, the DAs office, the jury, …
This is how it would work -
Example:
SGF. - 51% liable
MB - 40% liable
RC - 30% liable
SGF would be the only entity that would have to pay LK anything.
I’m sitting here wondering if you’re a lawyer or a mathematician.
Since you won’t believe ekat, maybe this blog post from a New Jersey law firm will help you get it. https://www.rosenbergperry.com/blog/what-are-shared-fault-laws-in-new-jersey/.
I always assume it is. I’m very sensitive to writing styles.
@ekat - I’m a little slow on understanding this. But unlike others, I admit it… 
So do they first address LK’s claims against one entity, and after all the arguments (witnesses, evidence, etc.) in that regard, do they then move on to addressing her claims against the next entity? And so on?
How do they decide what order to do it in? Will it be SGF first? Or MB first? Or RC first? Is the order agreed to ahead of time by all counsels, or does LK’s side get to determine the order?
Happens all the time. These cases take years. Right now there are cases with court dates of 2025 in my old court.
Ok, I’m putting these together here because they’re similar.
One trial, one jury of 6 people. NJ only requires 5 to agree.
Plaintiff goes first, with all her claims. Typically, what I’m used to, is it goes in the order she pled them, assuming none have been dismissed or anything.
In this case, the first counts were against SGF, then MB, then RC.
Plaintiff rests, defense (again, what I’m used to) goes in the order of the pleading.
Same for questioning. For example, LK on stand as Plaintiff in her case in chief. GAS questions her, than Mr Silver, then Mr Bilinkas/Mr Deininger, then RC’s attorneys whose names escape me get a shot at cross-exam.
How?
It starts off saying (Bolding mine)
“New Jersey follows a modified comparative negligence law (also referred to as proportionate responsibility), which contrasts with pure comparative negligence in determining potential shared fault.
In modified comparative negligence, the plaintiff cannot recover if they are deemed more at fault than the defendant.”
Then gives a dog bite example, then states:
“In modified comparative negligence, if the plaintiff is 60 percent at fault, they would receive nothing, but in pure comparative negligence, they would receive 40 percent of the damages”
Thanks. And sorry - I had not seen the other question before I posted mine. (I’m not sure how I manage to miss some posts although I am also trying to work and am checking the forum while waiting for my help systems to compile).
No worries!
I apologize if it’s been shared already (I skimmed through but don’t have time to read each reply thoroughly), but someone posted to horseshowdiva trying to figure out who LexInVA is, and how they can find out so much about people’s childhood records. There’s also something in the post introducing the idea that Lex is making up the information, so perhaps some of it is getting a bit too close to the truth for the K clan?
The court website now shows that the subpoena motions will be decided on 2/17/23 so the judge must have approved it.
You stated that LK would not recover anything if each individual defendant was less than 51% responsible. I understand LK not recovering anything if she herself is more than 51% responsible, but that’s a very different concept. That was the point of my example.
The blog states that the plaintiff will not recover if she is more responsible than the defendant.
In my example, LK was 10% responsible, so less responsible than each defendant individually, and of course, less responsible than the three defendants collectively.
If LK is 10% responsible and MB is 45% responsible, she is not more responsible than MB. Same with SGF and RC.
That is how I read it too.
It is very clear if you are willing to actually pay attention and want it to be clear and not twisted into something it is not.
Thank you @ekat for your amazing patience in explaining all this.
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
