(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.

Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

Account hacked.  Bong rip vid to come. 

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

Well it could just be a manipulative way to justify everyone jumping on Brad.

(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.

(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

MF'er..... you damn near made me shed a tear.

(04-29-2016, 12:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

(04-29-2016, 10:39 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: MF'er..... you damn near made me shed a tear.

(04-29-2016, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: Who are you, and what have you done with Fred?

(04-29-2016, 12:13 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Account hacked.  Bong rip vid to come. 

Mikey?

Brad Im not completely informed about your accident. Could you give a brief summary about it and how the cemetery is involved?

Never mind, I think I have the gist. Really? Your friend chooses to drive drunk and fast and you are blaming the place where he chose to drive drunk and fast? So if some rich guy had a long winding driveway that wasn't gated and your friend decided to drive drunk and fast, you think the homeowner should pay? I'm not even sure you should have a case against the driver as you knowingly got in the car. I'm not jydging you there as I chose to do that many times in my youth and am still surprised I'm alive.

(05-04-2016, 01:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Never mind, I think I have the gist.  Really?  Your friend chooses to drive drunk and fast and you are blaming the place where he chose to drive drunk and fast?  So if some rich guy had a long winding driveway that wasn't gated and your friend decided to drive drunk and fast, you think the homeowner should pay?  I'm not even sure you should have a case against the driver as you knowingly got in the car.  I'm not jydging you there as I chose to do that many times in my youth and am still surprised I'm alive.

The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked to prevent drivers back there after dark because even going at a speed that would be normal on a regular road would be dangerous.

The caretaker that lived back there allowed parties back there, allowed us to drink, and even provided the alcohol at times.  He let anything go on back there.

The case was against the driver's parents because they let him do anything he wanted and just be a maniac.

However, since you'd like to use it as if the case were against the driver himself, I did get in the car. However, we were back at the party in the cemetery just sitting in the car with people around, and I said that we should leave and go pick-up my girlfriend up in Devou Park.  The driver didn't like that idea because he didn't feel safe on the public roads but felt safe driving in the cemetery (which goes further to prove their responsibility in the matter), so he did a 180, and started speeding through the cemetery against my will, which is how we wrecked.

Yes, I knowingly got in the car, but how often do you knowingly get in the car with people (your best friend, no-less), trusting them, and then have them take you on an unexpected joy ride going over 55 mph through somewhere as dangerous to drive as a cemetery?

Who do you think is responsible for your injuries and why?

Who was sued and why did the jury think they weren't responsible?

(05-04-2016, 06:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who do you think is responsible for your injuries and why?

Who was sued and why did the jury think they weren't responsible?

I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.

(05-04-2016, 06:56 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who do you think is responsible for your injuries and why?

Who was sued and why did the jury think they weren't responsible?

I think the driver and his parents are responsible because they never punished him when they caught him drinking before, he controlled that house (told his parents how things would be, called his parents by their first names, never listened or had any rules), his dad had taken him driving in the actual cemetery before, so they knew he'd feel comfortable driving, especially back there, and he was always doing things like picking fights.

The cemetery for obvious reasons.

Then the guy who bought us the beer and whose car it was, but we let him off because his lawyers wanted to appeal the ruling I mentioned further, which we didn't want, and we could have only gotten a max of 50k out of them anyways.

(05-04-2016, 08:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.

For not being a lawyer that was a genius post!

(05-04-2016, 06:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked to prevent drivers back there after dark because even going at a speed that would be normal on a regular road would be dangerous.

The caretaker that lived back there allowed parties back there, allowed us to drink, and even provided the alcohol at times.  He let anything go on back there.

The case was against the driver's parents because they let him do anything he wanted and just be a maniac.

However, since you'd like to use it as if the case were against the driver himself, I did get in the car. However, we were back at the party in the cemetery just sitting in the car with people around, and I said that we should leave and go pick-up my girlfriend up in Devou Park.  The driver didn't like that idea because he didn't feel safe on the public roads but felt safe driving in the cemetery (which goes further to prove their responsibility in the matter), so he did a 180, and started speeding through the cemetery against my will, which is how we wrecked.

Yes, I knowingly got in the car, but how often do you knowingly get in the car with people (your best friend, no-less), trusting them, and then have them take you on an unexpected joy ride going over 55 mph through somewhere as dangerous to drive as a cemetery?

Who says the gates are supposed to be locked?Where is that law? Do you think unlocked gates give you permission to trespass?

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: ...The cemetery for obvious reasons...

What obvious reasons?  Seriously, most posting in this thread DON'T see obvious reasons at all.  If you story is true the caretaker's responsibility is probable but how do you figure his actions make the cemetery liable?  Did the cemetery tell him to do such questionable stuff?  Do yo have evidence they knew that stuff was going on?  All we have to go on is your side and most aren't seeing how the cemetery is liable.  Keep in mind, even if it was a house owned by the cemetery and even if living there was part of his compensation for his job, it was HIS residence.

A the moment all we have to say why you think the cemetery is liable can be summed up in your own words.  Twice.

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then the guy who bought us the beer and whose car it was, but we let him off because his lawyers wanted to appeal the ruling I mentioned further, which we didn't want, and we could have only gotten a max of 50k out of them anyways.

and

(04-28-2016, 02:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: ...We say "that's fine.  Let them go because the cemetery is where the money's at anyways."...

(05-04-2016, 08:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.

In order for liability to attach because of an "attractive nuisance" there usually has to be something inherently dangerous i.e. deep water, a tall structure or dangerous equipment that is easy to climb, an open pit, etc.  I don't think there is anything inherently dangerous about a cemetery, so if it was just posted that the cemetery was closed at a certain time I don't think it would be required that the gates were locked.  I know of lots of public areas that are posted as being closed that are not sealed shut by locked gates.  It just is not that easy to hols a property owner was responsible for injury tyo a trespasser. 

As for the caretaker I don't know how much proof the jury heard that he allowed parties in the cemetery, but again, if was not like he was allowing kids to do something dangerous like cliff diving or drag racing, so I don't know if he could be held liable just because he knew they might be there.  And he was not the one who provided the alcohol. It could be that he had some liability, but there would have to be a lot more facts than I have heard so far.  

(05-04-2016, 10:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who says the gates are supposed to be locked?Where is that law?  Do you think unlocked gates give you permission to trespass?

Not sure if it was law that it was supposed to be locked, but it was definitely the cemetery's policy and in the duties of the caretaker.

(05-05-2016, 12:21 AM)Penn Wrote: What obvious reasons?  Seriously, most posting in this thread DON'T see obvious reasons at all.  If you story is true the caretaker's responsibility is probable but how do you figure his actions make the cemetery liable?  Did the cemetery tell him to do such questionable stuff?  Do yo have evidence they knew that stuff was going on?  All we have to go on is your side and most aren't seeing how the cemetery is liable.  Keep in mind, even if it was a house owned by the cemetery and even if living there was part of his compensation for his job, it was HIS residence.

A the moment all we have to say why you think the cemetery is liable can be summed up in your own words.  Twice.


and

He was an employee of the cemetery, meaning that his actions are the cemetery's actions.  

To your point, no, it was NOT HIS RESIDENCE, it is the cemetery's house that he lives in rent-free because he is the caretaker.  

His job was to protect the cemetery, keep people out after dark, and keep the cemetery respectable and sacred, which he did not do by allowing parties back there, after dark at that (double whammy), and allowing drinking by kids 15 and under (even providing the alcohol in some cases).

(05-04-2016, 09:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think the driver and his parents are responsible because they never punished him when they caught him drinking before, he controlled that house (told his parents how things would be, called his parents by their first names, never listened or had any rules), his dad had taken him driving in the actual cemetery before, so they knew he'd feel comfortable driving, especially back there, and he was always doing things like picking fights.

The cemetery for obvious reasons.

Then the guy who bought us the beer and whose car it was, but we let him off because his lawyers wanted to appeal the ruling I mentioned further, which we didn't want, and we could have only gotten a max of 50k out of them anyways.

Sorry, but I am still very confused.

Who settled with you when your lawyer took the $200K?  Was that before everyone else went to trial?

I have never heard of letting someone off after he has been found liable just because he "wanted to appeal the ruling".  You never go to the trouble of filing a suite in the first place if you are going to drop it when the other side appeals a loss.

The driver was found to be responsible, right?  How old was he?  What was the relationship between him and the owner of the car?  How did he get possession of the car?

(05-05-2016, 12:54 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: His job was to protect the cemetery, keep people out after dark, and keep the cemetery respectable and sacred, which he did not do by allowing parties back there, after dark at that (double whammy), and allowing drinking by kids 15 and under (even providing the alcohol in some cases).

What kid of evidence did you present to the jury to prove he allowed these parties?  I am sure he denied it.  

To be honest I can not imagine an adult allowing kids to have a party in an area that he was responsible for maintaining.  Most adults know how crazy and destructive drunk kids can be.