04-29-2016, 03:24 PM
(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just all way too complicated with out getting exact details.
Procedurally, I don't know
1. Who the judgement was granted against. Brad claims, the driver, his parents, and the cemetery were all let off the hook I don't even know who else was involved.
2. What ruling the judge made against Brad that was not appealed.
3. Who's insurance settled and who went to trial.
Factually, I don't know
1. Did the caretaker ever give them permission to have parties in the cemetery.
2. Did the parents of the driver allow him to drink and drive without punishment.
3. Who bought the alcohol the night of the party.
As you can all see I have tried to be very balanced about this. I have even tried to give Brad some advice that could help him. But I don't see anything wrong with challenging his claims after he chose to post them here.
I would also like to give Brad credit for agreeing to help out his former attorney even though he is still very mad at him. That was the right thing to do. The way I see it this thread might even help Brad see that he was not wronged as badly as he believes. Harboring resentment for years really only hurts the person doing it. So maybe we can actually help Brad have a happier life from this point forward. The fact that Brad is still willing to help out his former attorney proves that he does not let the resentment control his actions. But the fact that he came here asking for help shows this still creates a lot of emotional turmoil for him.
You list factors for procedural and factual. Then there is the difference between moral and legal. Morally, I still see no way this could be the cemetery as liable (I've only read since my first post so I don't know what is known by us if only disclosed before that).
Now from what it sounds like from what I see here, the caretaker may be liable morally or legally depending on his actions on that given night or if he gave some kind of blanket permission but I highly doubt such permission existed from the cemetery ownership. It would seem that so at least some extent the caretakers actions while living on the grounds would be equivalent to a person renting a house or apartment. If a renter throws a wild party and gives alcohol to teens then one of those teens gets in a wreck, the owner of the property is not responsible for tenant's actions.
So maybe the caretaker is liable to an extent, but unless the cemetery told him contributing to the delinquency of minors was permitted, I can't see how they are liable. Why are lawyers so often looked down upon? Suing the caretaker probably isn't going to get much money, but hey, the cemetery has all kinds of money so let's go after the big money business. Of course, you have to look at the person the lawyer represents when s/he wants to use morally objectionable or frivolous tactics since an attorney can only represent their client in legal actions the client allows or promotes.
Regardless if the cemetery was made aware of all the "facts" we are hearing here, the caretaker should be fired. His absolute first job is making the grounds that some hold as sacred are not defiled.
