(05-05-2016, 01:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

Settlement that he took $200k from was a from a clause in our own insurance that said, if I was hurt by an uninsured driver, we were entitled to money.  That's why I said he took it without having to do anything for it, and that's why every other lawyer said that they wouldn't take a cut.

Another appeal of the ruling probably would have taken months, and, seeing as we could have only gotten 50k anyways, we decided that it wasn't worth the time, so we let them out or else we would have to have waited while the appeal went through.

Driver was 15, and the owner of the car was his sister's boyfriend.  He bought us beer and put it in the car, along with his keys.

(05-05-2016, 01:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Did I not just say that he bought us alcohol?  I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure I did.  His son was our age, and he let us because 1 kids don't just show up at a house uninvited  2  he would have called the cops if we weren't  3  he bought us alcohol  4 he let us have bondfires  5 his wife even told my mom that it was never a problem that we were back there because we weren't bothering anyone  6  he left the cemetery gates open  7  we partied in their basement when it was cold 8 he let us have concerts in the cemetery.

How could he deny any of that?

To the second point, that was exactly why we took them to trial and considered them liable.  

He set the stage and admitted that he let it happen when he could have stopped it.

Stop trying to convince me the caretaker is a factor of the horrible thing that happened to you. I already acknowledged it is valid, so just stop that. Focus on the question.

(05-05-2016, 12:54 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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).

By definition, the place a person lives in is their residence.  Whether they own, rent or living there as compensation for work. In normal situations being an employee of the company and actively on the job is enough to say the company is at fault but the mitigating issue here is, it was also his residence.

(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).

You won't hear and argument from me stating the caretaker wasn't in the wrong if what you say is true. If he did as you say, as I already stated twice, he should be fired and you have/had a case against HIM. Remember, I'm the one who has family buried there and I introduced the notion of the sacred nature of a cemetery to this thread. In fact I'd like to know if he is still employed there.

What you chose to ignore in my question needs a direct answer if you want to convince people the cemetery is liable. Where the owners of the cemetery aware of what was happening both in his residence and on their property.

Oh well, you lost your case so I'm guessing the link from the caretakers actions to the responsibility of the cemetery in this case is why a jury ruled in favor of them.

I have said it multiple times and even in this thread but it bears repeating since you conveniently ignore it. Plain and simple, do you have anything that proves the ownership of the cemetery promoted or was aware of the caretakers behaviors with his son's friends?

And for the third time in this post just to drive home these two points - I agree the caretaker seems to be liable and responsible. Do you have anything tying the cemetery to knowledge of or permission to the caretaker to do the things he admittedly was in the wrong for doing?

Do I need to ask a fourth time in this post (and I think 6 overall) for you to get that question?

By the way, you had valid reason to be annoyed with the lawyers actions in asking for help from you. That's not to say he was classless or wrong since by your own admission you never informed him of you anger about his representation. But it is certainly manipulative. Maybe this thread would benefit from you steering conversation back to that topic only.

I'm glad to hear you are walking again. I viewed the treadmill video when you posted it.

(05-05-2016, 04:14 AM)Penn Wrote: Stop trying to convince me the caretaker is a factor of the horrible thing that happened to you.  I already acknowledged it is valid, so just stop that.  Focus on the question.


By definition, the place a person lives in is their residence.  Whether they own, rent or living there as compensation for work.  In normal situations being an employee of the company and actively on the job is enough to say the company is at fault but the mitigating issue here is, it was also his residence.


You won't hear and argument from me stating the caretaker wasn't in the wrong if what you say is true.  If he did as you say, as I already stated twice, he should be fired and you have/had a case against HIM.  Remember, I'm the one who has family buried there and I introduced the notion of the sacred nature of a cemetery to this thread.  In fact I'd like to know if he is still employed there.

What you chose to ignore in my question needs a direct answer if you want to convince people the cemetery is liable.  Where the owners of the cemetery aware of what was happening both in his residence and on their property.

Oh well, you lost your case so I'm guessing the link from the caretakers actions to the responsibility of the cemetery in this case is why a jury ruled in favor of them.

I have said it multiple times and even in this thread but it bears repeating since you conveniently ignore it.  Plain and simple, do you have anything that proves the ownership of the cemetery promoted or was aware of the caretakers behaviors with his son's friends?

And for the third time in this post just to drive home these two points - I agree the caretaker seems to be liable and responsible.  Do you have anything tying the cemetery to knowledge of or permission to the caretaker to do the things he admittedly was in the wrong for doing?

Do I need to ask a fourth time in this post (and I think 6 overall) for you to get that question?

By the way, you had valid reason to be annoyed with the lawyers actions in asking for help from you.  That's not to say he was classless or wrong since by your own admission you never informed him of you anger about his representation. But it is certainly manipulative.  Maybe this thread would benefit from you steering conversation back to that topic only.

I'm glad to hear you are walking again.  I viewed the treadmill video when you posted it.

Um.......  in the post you just quoted, I stated that he even provided the alcohol in some cases, so how could he not be aware of what was going on?

They were aware that he never locked the gates, and I assume that they knew he allowed parties back there because it was common knowledge.  Even if they didn't, the caretaker is their employee and what happens on the cemetery's property is their responsibility.  You can't hire someone to be in charge of something of yours and then say "oh, we have no ties" when something goes wrong.

I've been walking for 16+ years, but it wasn't until October that I started running, but it is much appreciated.

I don't see where I said anything about the caretaker not knowing what was going on?

But the answer to the question is, no, there is no evidence the cemetery knew about him giving alcohol to teens. Where your argument falls apart in the legal world is the cemetery ownership cannot fix a problem if they don't know the problem exists. Since you make it clear you are just assuming they knew, obviously this wasn't even entered into evidence in the trial. That may have made all the difference.

As far as it being their property, I know of 2 cases in 2 states with employees receiving living quarters as partial job compensation that might apply in Kentucky (neither case was in KY). Owners of the properties were not held liable for tenants/employees who did things they shouldn't have in the residences or on the areas considered to be a part of the residence, and while not on duty because the owners had no way of knowing about the activities. Therefore they were considered tenants and not employees.

(05-05-2016, 12:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.  

Brad has already mentioned what was inherently dangerous - the roads within the cemetery. And, everything you named - water, tall structures, dangerous equipment, open pits - is commonly found in cemeteries as well. So, yes, a cemetery is an inherently dangerous place and this one was too. Of course all the facts - exactly what was there, exactly how the road was laid out, the light level, etc. would need to be explored at trial - but to suggest the caretaker and his employer had little to no responsibility based on the facts we already know... well as Andy Dufresne said, "... are you just being obtuse?"

(05-05-2016, 04:14 AM)Penn Wrote: Stop trying to convince me the caretaker is a factor of the horrible thing that happened to you.  I already acknowledged it is valid, so just stop that.  Focus on the question.


By definition, the place a person lives in is their residence.  Whether they own, rent or living there as compensation for work.  In normal situations being an employee of the company and actively on the job is enough to say the company is at fault but the mitigating issue here is, it was also his residence.


You won't hear and argument from me stating the caretaker wasn't in the wrong if what you say is true.  If he did as you say, as I already stated twice, he should be fired and you have/had a case against HIM.  Remember, I'm the one who has family buried there and I introduced the notion of the sacred nature of a cemetery to this thread.  In fact I'd like to know if he is still employed there.

What you chose to ignore in my question needs a direct answer if you want to convince people the cemetery is liable.  Where the owners of the cemetery aware of what was happening both in his residence and on their property.

Oh well, you lost your case so I'm guessing the link from the caretakers actions to the responsibility of the cemetery in this case is why a jury ruled in favor of them.

I have said it multiple times and even in this thread but it bears repeating since you conveniently ignore it.  Plain and simple, do you have anything that proves the ownership of the cemetery promoted or was aware of the caretakers behaviors with his son's friends?

And for the third time in this post just to drive home these two points - I agree the caretaker seems to be liable and responsible.  Do you have anything tying the cemetery to knowledge of or permission to the caretaker to do the things he admittedly was in the wrong for doing?

Do I need to ask a fourth time in this post (and I think 6 overall) for you to get that question?

By the way, you had valid reason to be annoyed with the lawyers actions in asking for help from you.  That's not to say he was classless or wrong since by your own admission you never informed him of you anger about his representation. But it is certainly manipulative.  Maybe this thread would benefit from you steering conversation back to that topic only.

I'm glad to hear you are walking again.  I viewed the treadmill video when you posted it.

I really don't think your question is relevant, although I understand your frustration about it being overlooked. There have been numerous cases (I've read about them in books that include the legal citations and I have looked the cases up and confirmed their existence) where employers were held responsible for the actions of their employees because they either a) knew what the employee did, or b) reasonably should have known. In this case what was happening at the cemetery falls squarely under "b." So, it makes "a" irrelevant. Case law says the employer should know - precisely because of the contract it made with the people you knew (and all the others) who had burial plots there - if the employee is protecting the property. That was his job - to care for it! The employer should reasonably be expected to know if an employee is caring for the things and the place he or she was hired to care for!





I readily admit, and even said, some of this thread's posts are confusing and sometimes in this thread and others I have trouble following Brad's train of thought. But, some of the posts questioning him reflect either some latent hostility toward him or just a misunderstanding of certain legal principles (see above in this post for an example of same).

(05-05-2016, 07:34 AM)xxlt Wrote: Brad has already mentioned what was inherently dangerous - the roads within the cemetery. And, everything you named - water, tall structures, dangerous equipment, open pits - is commonly found in cemeteries as well. So, yes, a cemetery is an inherently dangerous place and this one was too. Of course all the facts - exactly what was there, exactly how the road was laid out, the light level, etc. would need to be explored at trial - but to suggest the caretaker and his employer had little to no responsibility based on the facts we already know... well as Andy Dufresne said, "... are you just being obtuse?"

Roads are not inherently dangerous.  Darkness alone is not enough to make a road dangerous.    It takes more to hold a landowner responsible for injury to trespassers.  If you own or control a piece of property that is not inherently dangerous then you are not required to build walls and gates to keep people from trespassing.

If the cemetery caretaker admitted that he allowed the party to take place there is still more required to make him liable for the actions of another person.  If I let some kids have a party on my property that does not make me liable if one of them pulls a gun and shoots someone.  This goes back to the reason for the accident being a drunk driver and not anything dangerous about the cemetery.  It sounds like this is what the jury decided.  The injury was due to the actions of a drunk driver, not any defect in the cemetery that made it dangerous.  That is why they said "it could have happened anywhere".  They believed it could have happened anywhere because the cause of the accident was a drunk driver, not a dangerous condition in the cemetery.  

Finally the owner of the cemetery could be held responsible for the actions of the caretaker, but only if the negligence involved his job responsibilities.  That is to say that the owner could be held responsible if the caretaker was negligent for letting the kids have parties there, but they would not be held liable if he did something like provide the alcohol.  The liability of an owner for the actions of an employee or agent only apply to duties involved in the course of employment.  For example Kroger would be responsible if one of their truck drivers had a wreck while on the job, but they would not be responsible if he robbed a gas station.  There are some exceptions to this rule (like a day care hiring a child abuser) but generally that is the law.

(05-05-2016, 12:54 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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.



 

There own rules are up to them to abide by or not.  It's my job to lock my doors at night, but if I don't it doesn't mean it's OK for you to come into my house, and then sue me when you fall down the stairs.

(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.

So you believe the driver and his parents, the owner of the car who also bought the alcohol, the care taker, and the cemetery are responsible.

You sued the cemetery because they had the deepest pockets.

Why did the jury not believe the cemetery was liable?

(05-05-2016, 09:36 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why did the jury not believe the cemetery was liable?

I think we all know the answer, but to Brad they "screwed up".

If the driver was 15 then the parents would have been financially responsible for any judgement obtained against him just because they were his parents. That is different from holding the parents personally responsible for failing to raise him properly. But again, they may not have had a lot of money.

(05-05-2016, 09:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Finally the owner of the cemetery could be held responsible for the actions of the caretaker, but only if the negligence involved his job responsibilities.  That is to say that the owner could be held responsible if the caretaker was negligent for letting the kids have parties there, but they would not be held liable if he did something like provide the alcohol.  The liability of an owner for the actions of an employee or agent only apply to duties involved in the course of employment.  For example Kroger would be responsible if one of their truck drivers had a wreck while on the job, but they would not be responsible if he robbed a gas station.  There are some exceptions to this rule (like a day care hiring a child abuser) but generally that is the law.

The other part of this that makes me feel like the cemetery would not be liable for the caretaker's **** wittage is that from my understanding of the event based on the reading of these posts is that to get from the party to the cemetery itself, there was a gate that had to be passed through. That, if I were on a jury, would signal to me that the caretaker was allowing a party at his home, but not in the cemetery property. The property owners may be the same, but that separation is distinct. The cemetery would be treated as a landlord in relation to the caretaker's home. If I allow people to leave drunk from my apartment and they crash I may be liable, but my landlord certainly isn't.

That's the way I view it, anyway.

Brad, I spent 90% of my life around Covington and NKY in general. From some of the descriptions, I'm guessing this was Mother of God Cemetery in Latonia?

If not where did the accident happen? Just curious.

(05-05-2016, 02:17 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:  4 he let us have bondfires  

8  he let us have concerts in the cemetery.

You had concerts and bonfires in this cemetery?

(05-05-2016, 01:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Brad, I spent 90% of my life around Covington and NKY in general. From some of the descriptions, I'm guessing this was Mother of God Cemetery in Latonia?

If not where did the accident happen? Just curious.

Highlands Cemetery.

On Dixie Highway, across from that Kroger in Fort Mitchell that's right behind Beechwood.  

(05-05-2016, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You had concerts and bonfires in this cemetery?

Yes.  

I didn't put them on, the caretaker's son did, which the caretaker allowed and even provided us with supplies, including alcohol.

I'm not a lawyer and don't know all the legal responsibilities concerning this situation, but to me that's not the most important part.

The incredible disrespect that was shown to this 'resting place' is mind-bobbling. Drinking, partying, having bonfires and concerts? WTF? I don't care if the caretaker permitted/encouraged it or not...EVERYONE involved in those actions should be ashamed of themselves. 

Absolutely no respect and a complete disregard for the bodies in the ground and their families. 

(05-05-2016, 07:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: I really don't think your question is relevant, although I understand your frustration about it being overlooked. There have been numerous cases (I've read about them in books that include the legal citations and I have looked the cases up and confirmed their existence) where employers were held responsible for the actions of their employees because they either a) knew what the employee did, or b) reasonably should have known. In this case what was happening at the cemetery falls squarely under "b." So, it makes "a" irrelevant. Case law says the employer should know - precisely because of the contract it made with the people you knew (and all the others) who had burial plots there - if the employee is protecting the property. That was his job - to care for it! The employer should reasonably be expected to know if an employee is caring for the things and the place he or she was hired to care for!





I readily admit, and even said, some of this thread's posts are confusing and sometimes in this thread and others I have trouble following Brad's train of thought. But, some of the posts questioning him reflect either some latent hostility toward him or just a misunderstanding of certain legal principles (see above in this post for an example of same).

That door swings both ways.  If the grounds were properly maintained, plus while on the property the owners never saw anything amiss in behavior and no one ever reported the after hours activities at the caretakers residence, well, then it is reasonable for the ownership to not know.  How exactly do you feel it is reasonably expected that the owners would know even if all appearances indicated nothing was going on?  The burden to demonstrate it is reasonable is on the plaintiff.  Present that case.

As you saw in my first post in this thread, I am definitely not among those with hostility towards Brad.  In fact, even though this whole situation disrespects the final resting place of over a dozen of my relatives, neither this topic nor any past debates Brad has had on this forum dissuade me from having sympathy for him.  I just think legally and morally he is wrong here.

(05-05-2016, 02:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I'm not a lawyer and don't know all the legal responsibilities concerning this situation, but to me that's not the most important part.

The incredible disrespect that was shown to this 'resting place' is mind-bobbling. Drinking, partying, having bonfires and concerts? WTF? I don't care if the caretaker permitted/encouraged it or not...EVERYONE involved in those actions should be ashamed of themselves. 

Absolutely no respect and a complete disregard for the bodies in the ground and their families. 

Rep.  As I said in my first post in this thread, two of my great-aunts were incredibly upset about the accident happening on the grounds where over one dozen of their family members were already buried and on of them was to be interred a few years later.  And I doubt they even knew about the parties.

I personally knew at least 7 interred there and went to 3 final services there (at the time of the accident I knew 4 and only attended 1 service - my great-aunt and grandparents passed away later).  I am not angry or saddened by all this but I do feel people should respect those who are or would be emotionally wounded by this.  Thus the mentionings already in this thread that morally I feel suing the cemetery is just wrong.

And Brad when you say the gates should have been locked (although I don't see how that's a law), are you saying you and your friends should have been protected from your own stupidity? The times you comment in P&R, you seem to be pretty conservative. Is that how a conservative would view things?

Bonfires and concerts in a cemetery?  WTF?