- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Madison Brooks' Dad Lawsuit
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:30 am to Supermoto Tiger
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:30 am to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
When in doubt, sue everyone in sight and let the courts sort it out.
Pure evil.
Dragging innocent people into the fray just because youre greedy.
1
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:32 am to Jcorye1
quote:
This is why everyone hates lawyers.
Ironically it should be "don't hate the player, hate the game"
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:33 am to JDPndahizzy
This is totally normal in a case like this. Each I social names will probably be covered by an insurance company for the entity they worked for. There will then be a point where some names are taken off. Then there will be attempts by the instance company to settle the lawsuit. They may go to court on this one though and they should. There is tons of negligence.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:34 am to BilbeauTBaggins
quote:
Ironically it should be "don't hate the player, hate the game"
Yeah I mean I'm willing to listen to how to reform the system, using this instance as an example.
Empty chairs create major risks for plaintiffs in having liability assessed.
I'm waiting on the simple, "common sense" approaches to fix that risk assessment.
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 10:35 am
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:34 am to tigersbb
quote:
However, they apparently told the authorities they let her out at the entrance to the subdivision as requested.
You can’t be this naive
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:35 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
You can’t be this naive
I didn't think that this fact was really in dispute.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:36 am to JDPndahizzy
I get the sentiment here, but if that was my daughter I’d be screaming at random cars at this point. I’d sue and terrorize anyone I could.
I know it’s irrational, but if that happened to my baby, I would absolutely lose my shite.
I know it’s irrational, but if that happened to my baby, I would absolutely lose my shite.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I wasn't clear, counselor. What I meant was their criminal actions in raping her do not equate to civil liability for the subsequent accident which took her life.
Fair enough.
Would you also agree the plaintiffs will have a difficult time in establishing liability against Reggie's? Under Louisiana’s limited dram shop law a provider of alcohol can be held responsible if:
1)They sold or provided alcohol to someone who was clearly intoxicated
2)They sold or provided alcohol to someone who was underage
3)The intoxicated or underage person went on to harm themselves or someone else as a result of their intoxication
They may be proven guilty of one or both of the first two. The third would be difficult to establish unless the law can be stretched to say she harmed herself as a result of her intoxication.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:43 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Dragging innocent people into the fray just because youre greedy.
I mean, a cynical person might suggest the Dad sue himself for negligent parenting, but I won't....I won't.....
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:45 am to tigersbb
quote:
do not equate to civil liability for the subsequent accident which took her life.
for dropping off a girl in a parking lot that had no current ride next to a dangerous road at 3 am that was so inebriated that she literally got struck by a car in the middle of the road shortly after her raping?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:46 am to tgrbaitn08
quote:
However, they apparently told the authorities they let her out at the entrance to the subdivision as requested.
You can’t be this naive
In a lawsuit the plaintiffs will have to prove each element of their case. If the men testify Ms. Brooks was let out at the entrance to the subdivision and not in the middle of Burbank who will contradict this? Unless there was a witness or video to refute it their testimony will have to stand.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:46 am to touchdownjeebus
quote:
I know it’s irrational, but if that happened to my baby, I would absolutely lose my shite.
Sure, but any rational parent would question THEIR role in this.
And they would be more interested in finding someone to "Plauche" these animals instead of going for the lottery.
This just sounds like a cash grab by an azzhole who won't admit maybe he failed as a parent.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:46 am to tigersbb
quote:
1)They sold or provided alcohol to someone who was clearly intoxicated
Prove it
quote:
2)They sold or provided alcohol to someone who was underage
Prove it
quote:
3)The intoxicated or underage person went on to harm themselves or someone else as a result of their intoxication
That’s your opinion
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:46 am to JDPndahizzy
The rapists likely have no money to pay any civil awards against them. The bar and Lfyt, and their employees, have insurance available, with Commercial limits ($1M, $5M, etc.) And perhaps excess layers.
Even defendants with strong legal positions can make economic decisions and settle. It happens every day.
There will be a lot of motions filed, lots of discovery and maneuvering here, a judge hoping aspects of the case(s) are settled, etc.
The standard in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, a high bar. In civil liability (tort), the standard is more likely than not, a much lower bar. State laws vary.
Look at O.J. Not guilty criminally, but the plaintiff's prevailed in civil case and were awarded a lot of $. Of course O.J., maybe for multiple reasons, has never satisfied/paid the judgement.
Even defendants with strong legal positions can make economic decisions and settle. It happens every day.
There will be a lot of motions filed, lots of discovery and maneuvering here, a judge hoping aspects of the case(s) are settled, etc.
The standard in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, a high bar. In civil liability (tort), the standard is more likely than not, a much lower bar. State laws vary.
Look at O.J. Not guilty criminally, but the plaintiff's prevailed in civil case and were awarded a lot of $. Of course O.J., maybe for multiple reasons, has never satisfied/paid the judgement.
This post was edited on 12/4/23 at 10:55 am
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:49 am to oogabooga68
quote:
I mean, a cynical person might suggest the Dad sue himself for negligent parenting, but I won't....I won't.....
I would agree with you.
But dad and some bitch lawyer just wants to cash in now.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:50 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
But dad and some bitch lawyer just wants to cash in now.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:53 am to oogabooga68
quote:
That's what it sounds like to me.
is this the part where you boldly tell us what you would or wouldn't do had this happened to you and your daughter? Or did you already do that and i missed it?
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:54 am to Chad504boy
quote:
is this the part where you boldly tell us what you would or wouldn't do
I wouldnt drag innocent people into my problems, no.
They've already been through enough without having to deal with shitty lawsuits over greed.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:58 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I wouldnt drag innocent people into my problems, no.
So your definition of innocent people should supersede a family member's opinion of innocent people.
Posted on 12/4/23 at 10:58 am to Chad504boy
quote:
Chad504boy
This is the guy who started a flex thread on the OB about returning an item and getting a refund from Academy that he didnt purchase there.
I imagine hes all about the money.
Page 20 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News