(05-05-2016, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Brad, what type of evidence did the jury hear about this guy allowing you all to party and drink back there?

Even if this guy was not legally responsible for the accident it seems like he should have been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

That is, I am sure know, not a call Brad's CIVIL attorney would make. The PROSECUTOR would decide if the caretaker were criminally charged with anything.

(05-06-2016, 08:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: Common sense, the procedure of literally every cemetery I have ever seen (I lived by one for years and never saw the gates there or at any other unlocked from dusk to well after dawn), and almost certainly the law.

There are laws against abusing a corpse. Did you know that? It is true. There are laws to protect people from that sort of trauma - the trauma of learning your loved ones corpse was defiled.

There are, I imagine, laws that likewise protect the interred remains of people. One poster has posted repeatedly about how traumatic the accident was to people who had relatives buried there. If you think there are not laws that govern the operation of a cemetery (but there are laws that govern restaurants, gas stations, barber shops, factories, real estate offices, etc.) maybe you are right, but I would say it is on you to demonstrate this is the one 100% unregulated business in America and cemeteries have no legal obligation to secure and maintain the grounds where they inter human remains. Pretty sure the routine practice of every cemetery is rooted in a legally binding contractual agreement to provide a secure final resting place. Part of that security is preventing grave robbing and desecration, hence the fences around ALL commercial cemeteries and the LOCKED gates every night.







Or did you think they put up the fences because people are just dying to get in there? (Heard that joke as a kid.)

There are cemeteries with no fences whatsoever around them let alone locked gates, and the ones that do aren't there to protect people from themselves.  

Brad....Is this true?

http://www2.cincinnati.com/preps/2002/08/24/pre_beechwoods_yeagle.html

Quote:1999, a 15-year-old Beechwood player who was drinking and driving in a stolen car slammed into a tree at a cemetery in Fort Mitchell. Brad Fritz, a Covington Catholic High School football player sitting in the back seat, suffered head injuries and was hospitalized for four months.

(05-06-2016, 08:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: There are cemeteries with no fences whatsoever around them let alone locked gates, and the ones that do aren't there to protect people from themselves.  

I was going to say, there are cemeteries without anything surround them in plenty of places. There are also cemeteries with gates but walls/fences around them that could not keep a fat man with very little nimbleness out (I know, I've hopped those walls as I live near one). I thought, and I could be wrong, that if it is posted that the location is closed and there is no access between certain hours, then that is adequate to show that you are on the property illegally and as such the property owners are not liable for injuries you may sustain. I'm sure it is more complex than that, but that was what I understood from my business law class.

(05-06-2016, 08:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: Common sense, the procedure of literally every cemetery I have ever seen (I lived by one for years and never saw the gates there or at any other unlocked from dusk to well after dawn), and almost certainly the law.

The law does not require the cemetery to lock their gates, or for that matter have gates. The gates intent at cemeteries have never been about protecting people from driving on their roads, it is about keeping people out from desecrating graves hence why they have been done long before the invention of cars. Just because the roads were dark does not make the cemetery liable as all modern cars are equipped with lights and by law those lights must be used at night. If it is reasonable to assume the roads can be navigated by a person who is not intoxicated at normal speeds (My guess is there had never been a driving accident there before), then the facts of this case would show they are not liable for the driver as he was the sole reason those conditions were made worse through excessive speeds and intoxication.

Now with all that said, I can totally see them being liable based on the caretaker being an extension of the cemetery. However, let's move off the whole gates should have been closed and bad driving conditions argument as they just don't hold water.

(05-06-2016, 09:15 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Brad....Is this true?

http://www2.cincinnati.com/preps/2002/08/24/pre_beechwoods_yeagle.html

The boy did not have permission to take the car, but it was not really "stolen" because he was only "borrowing" and never intended to keep it.  In many states this is a misdemeanor called "joyriding".  The car belonged to his sister's boyfriend.  This was the guy that bought the beer for them.  The beer was in the car, so the boy drove the car to the party instead of walking down the street carrying the beer. 

(05-06-2016, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The boy did not have permission to take the car, but it was not really "stolen" because he was only "borrowing" and never intended to keep it.  In many states this is a misdemeanor called "joyriding".  The car belonged to his sister's boyfriend.  This was the guy that bought the beer for them.  The beer was in the car, so the boy drove the car to the party instead of walking down the street carrying the beer. 

Ah.  It didn't say the car was owned by a family member.  

It looks to me like Brad was just the victim of an unusual set of circumstances regarding collecting for his damages.

The owner of the car was not liable because it was used without his permission. That excluded coverage from his insurance.

The driver of the car was not covered under his parents auto insurance because he was not a licensed driver listed on their policy.

The Parents of the driver were not liable for "negligent supervision" because there were not enough facts to prove they should have been required to be supervised 24 hours a day. He had been caught drinking a couple of times before, but he had been punished when his parents found out. And they had never allowed him to drive by himself without adult supervision. If you wanted to hold them liable then you would also have to hold Brad's parents liable for letting him go out drinking underage.

The cemetery was not liable because there were no defects in the roads that made them inherently dangerous.

The caretaker does not seem to be liable in this case because he did not provide any alcohol or allow the kids to do anything that was inherently dangerous. Just allowing kids to gather ina spot does not lead to liability for one of them getting drunk and riving.

So it seems that he would have ended up with a judgement against the 15 year old driver, but no insurance to collect from (the parents homeowner insurance would not cover an accident involving a motor vehicle). That is why Brad's family got a settlement from their own insurance for damage done to them by another uninsured driver.

A lot of people made bad decisions. The guy who bought the beer for the boys to drink. The caretaker that let teens gather and have parties with no supervision. Maybe the parents of Brad and his friend (I don't really know enough to judge any of the parents.) The driver of the car, and Brad himself. But for the most part it seems that the law was followed and Brad did not lose a "slam dunk" case.

(05-06-2016, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It looks to me like Brad was just the victim of an unusual set of circumstances regarding collecting for his damages.

The owner of the car was not liable because it was used without his permission.  That excluded coverage from his insurance.

The driver of the car was not covered under his parents auto insurance because he was not a licensed driver listed on their policy.

The Parents of the driver were not liable for "negligent supervision" because there were not enough facts to prove they should have been required to be supervised 24 hours a day.  He had been caught drinking a couple of times before, but he had been punished when his parents found out.  And they had never allowed him to drive by himself without adult supervision.  If you wanted to hold them liable then you would also have to hold Brad's parents liable for letting him go out drinking underage.

The cemetery was not liable because there were no defects in the roads that made them inherently dangerous.

The caretaker does not seem to be liable in this case because he did not provide any alcohol or allow the kids to do anything that was inherently dangerous.  Just allowing kids to gather ina spot does not lead to liability for one of them getting drunk and riving.

So it seems that he would have ended up with a judgement against the 15 year old driver, but no insurance to collect from (the parents homeowner insurance would not cover an accident involving a motor vehicle).  That is why Brad's family got a settlement from their own insurance for damage done to them by another uninsured driver.

A lot of people made bad decisions.  The guy who bought the beer for the boys to drink.  The caretaker that let teens gather and have parties with no supervision.  Maybe the parents of Brad and his friend (I don't really know enough to judge any of the parents.)  The driver of the car, and Brad himself.  But for the most part it seems that the law was followed and Brad did not lose a "slam dunk" case.

Yep, pretty much this.

(05-06-2016, 08:40 AM)xxlt Wrote: I love the happy ending of that story. And I love that you owe me a nickel! How could you mistake MOG cemetery for Highlands? Next you will be mixing up Herb and Thelma's and The Anchor Grill!
Cheers brother! You can pay the nickel in one payment or five easy installments of one cent each.

What made me think it was MOG cemetery is that someone said there was an entrance from an old state highway and one entrance from a small residential neighborhood. Also, MOG is a pretty big cemetery with a private residence on the grounds.

It makes more sense that it was Highlands though. That place seems much more secluded than MOG.
Btw, I've never been to Herb and Thelma's. Love me some Anchor Grill, although I usually wasn't sober when I ate there. 

I would write you a check for 5 cents, but it might bounce. 

(05-06-2016, 08:33 AM)xxlt Wrote: Legally, the door swings one way, according to what I was taught by a lawyer in a business law class (designed to protect businesses). What she taught was from a business law book, written by lawyers, and again citing case law. Now I am no lawyer, but I know the "reasonable person" standard and I know businesses are responsible for the conduct of their people. I will leave it there.

I get you aren't holding a voodoo doll of Brad, and I am not weighing in morally, but legally those who think he is out in left field are misinformed. Those who keep saying, "then why did the jury or the judge...," fail to understand that justice is routinely not served in our court system. The system - GASP - does not always get it right. This doesn't mean Brad is a sore loser. It means like every plaintiff wronged, he got a raw deal. If he appealed, the decision may be reversed - this happens all the time. This is why we have appeals courts and a Supreme Court. C'mon guys, I know they don't teach civics any more but geez...

Legally the door does swing both ways because the hinge is in a single word "reasonable".

So let's look a wat a person has seen in learning both sides of civics (but geez, derogatory much?).  You or Brad (the apparent only plaintiffs) present your case of reasonable knowledge or, since you think we are all too ignorant to understand civics, the "you shoulda knowed" stance.  The defense has two choices.

Do nothing or just a little because you didn't prove the owner should have known.  But if the defense feels the jury may agree with the reasonable expectation, they can demonstrate the employee was successful at hiding their wrong activities.  I know it's shocking but people who are doing something wrong they do what they can to hide it.  In this case the mitigating circumstance that make it it easier for the employee to hide activities the employer would not approve is the employee lives on the property.  As part of having a residence their is a balancing act in regards to the employees right to privacy and a life countered against the employer's right and responsibilities.  this makes it easier for an employee to hide wrong doing.  A competent attorney can easily demonstrate why the cemetery didn't know even if they were doing what is reasonable to be aware.  Oh wait, I'm using that word with the door swinging the other way again.  I guess I just don't know civics, like you said.

edit: I know you didn't mean anything rude with your last line. My comments where that relates were meant to be in jest but at the same time to point out that just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't understand.

(05-06-2016, 08:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: Common sense, the procedure of literally every cemetery I have ever seen (I lived by one for years and never saw the gates there or at any other unlocked from dusk to well after dawn), and almost certainly the law.

There are laws against abusing a corpse. Did you know that? It is true. There are laws to protect people from that sort of trauma - the trauma of learning your loved ones corpse was defiled.

There are, I imagine, laws that likewise protect the interred remains of people. One poster has posted repeatedly about how traumatic the accident was to people who had relatives buried there. If you think there are not laws that govern the operation of a cemetery (but there are laws that govern restaurants, gas stations, barber shops, factories, real estate offices, etc.) maybe you are right, but I would say it is on you to demonstrate this is the one 100% unregulated business in America and cemeteries have no legal obligation to secure and maintain the grounds where they inter human remains. Pretty sure the routine practice of every cemetery is rooted in a legally binding contractual agreement to provide a secure final resting place. Part of that security is preventing grave robbing and desecration, hence the fences around ALL commercial cemeteries and the LOCKED gates every night.







Or did you think they put up the fences because people are just dying to get in there? (Heard that joke as a kid.)

Forest Lawn, in Erlanger, has a sign that says the gates are locked at dusk. Over the last couple decades, driving by there at all hours, i've never seen those gates closed. 

(05-06-2016, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It looks to me like Brad was just the victim of an unusual set of circumstances regarding collecting for his damages.

The owner of the car was not liable because it was used without his permission.  That excluded coverage from his insurance.

The driver of the car was not covered under his parents auto insurance because he was not a licensed driver listed on their policy.

The Parents of the driver were not liable for "negligent supervision" because there were not enough facts to prove they should have been required to be supervised 24 hours a day.  He had been caught drinking a couple of times before, but he had been punished when his parents found out.  And they had never allowed him to drive by himself without adult supervision.  If you wanted to hold them liable then you would also have to hold Brad's parents liable for letting him go out drinking underage.

The cemetery was not liable because there were no defects in the roads that made them inherently dangerous.

The caretaker does not seem to be liable in this case because he did not provide any alcohol or allow the kids to do anything that was inherently dangerous.  Just allowing kids to gather ina spot does not lead to liability for one of them getting drunk and riving.

So it seems that he would have ended up with a judgement against the 15 year old driver, but no insurance to collect from (the parents homeowner insurance would not cover an accident involving a motor vehicle).  That is why Brad's family got a settlement from their own insurance for damage done to them by another uninsured driver.

A lot of people made bad decisions.  The guy who bought the beer for the boys to drink.  The caretaker that let teens gather and have parties with no supervision.  Maybe the parents of Brad and his friend (I don't really know enough to judge any of the parents.)  The driver of the car, and Brad himself.  But for the most part it seems that the law was followed and Brad did not lose a "slam dunk" case.

Most of this is false.

The owner went to jail for buying the beer and letting us use his car.  As I said, he was let out of the case.

The driver was never punished for drinking before, which I noted to the judge and he ignored, and they had let him drive in the cemetery where we wrecked.  If they had caught him drinking, and punished him (which they didn't, but pretend they did), and the punishments didn't stop him from repeating what he did, then why wouldn't they assume that he'd do it again?  Furthermore, did they tell him not to drive on his own?  Why would they assume that he'd listen about that if he didn't listen about the drinking, especially if they let him drive?

No defects in the road in the cemetery, but it was narrow, dark, tree-filled, and gravestone filled (we clipped a gravestone, which sent us into the 360s), which is why it's supposed to be closed at night because it's dangerous to drive (along with respecting the dead), and that's also why the speed limit is 10 mph (maybe 5).

The caretaker allowed us to drink and provided alcohol to some of the kids that night, most of us at some point, and created the environment where everything was ok and actually encouraged.

So, yes, it was a slam dunk case.

(05-06-2016, 09:47 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Forest Lawn, in Erlanger, has a sign that says the gates are locked at dusk. Over the last couple decades, driving by there at all hours, i've never seen those gates closed. 

But that's not a wooded area like Highlands Cemetery.

(05-06-2016, 09:15 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Brad....Is this true?

http://www2.cincinnati.com/preps/2002/08/24/pre_beechwoods_yeagle.html

No.  

Even if what Fred was false, he left his keys in the car, and the driver was never charged with stealing the car because he admitted that the owner left the keys in it and that it was assumed permission for us to drive.

He went to jail for 30 days for it (you don't go to jail for 30 days for just buying beer for 15-year-olds, and definitely not back in 99).

(05-07-2016, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: The driver was never punished for drinking before, which I noted to the judge and he ignored,

First of all you had no knowledge of how he was punished.  There was evidence that he had been punished and was even told that if he was caught drinking again he would not be allowed to get his driving permit.  There was also evidence that the parents had removed him from another gathering when they were told there was going to be alcohol consumed.  Plus he was not constantly getting caught drinking.  I believ there had only been 2 times in the last yar.

I assume that your testimony was considered merely hearsay because you were not in the boy's home when he was disciplined.

Also do  you blame your own parents for not stopping you from drinking that night?  Do you think they are somehow responsible for your behavior?

(05-07-2016, 11:06 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:  he admitted that the owner left the keys in it and that it was assumed permission for us to drive.

Actually what the boy testified to was that he knew he did not have permission to take the car, but he did not think the owner would be too mad at him.

I don't know what happened in the criminal charges against the guy who bough the beer, but I am glad to hear that he was punished.

(05-07-2016, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:  If they had caught him drinking, and punished him (which they didn't, but pretend they did), and the punishments didn't stop him from repeating what he did, then why wouldn't they assume that he'd do it again?  Furthermore, did they tell him not to drive on his own?  Why would they assume that he'd listen about that if he didn't listen about the drinking, especially if they let him drive?

You standard for parenting responsibility is ridiculous.  Just because a child gets in trouble that does not mean that parents are required to monitor the child 24  hours a day for the rest of his life.

If he was getting into trouble constantly then there may have been a higher standard, but they had never let him drive alone before without adult supervision, and he had only been caught drinking a couple of times in one year.

And why didn't your parents tell you not to drink at age 15?

(05-07-2016, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: No defects in the road in the cemetery, but it was narrow, dark, tree-filled, and gravestone filled (we clipped a gravestone, which sent us into the 360s), which is why it's supposed to be closed at night because it's dangerous to drive (along with respecting the dead), and that's also why the speed limit is 10 mph (maybe 5).

None of those conditions rise to the level of "defect".  A reasonable person driving in a reasonable manner could have easily traveled that road without an accident.  The cause of the accident was not the road.  It was a drunk driver.

Since this was a regular party spot I am sure that many other people had been able to drive through the cemetery at night without wrecking.

(05-07-2016, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: The caretaker allowed us to drink and provided alcohol to some of the kids that night, most of us at some point, and created the environment where everything was ok and actually encouraged.

What evidence was provided to the court regarding the caretaker providing alcohol that night?  Was he also charged with contributing to the delinquency of minors like the boy who bough the beer for you?

(05-07-2016, 10:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Most of this is false.

The owner went to jail for buying the beer and letting us use his car.  As I said, he was let out of the case.

The driver was never punished for drinking before, which I noted to the judge and he ignored, and they had let him drive in the cemetery where we wrecked.  If they had caught him drinking, and punished him (which they didn't, but pretend they did), and the punishments didn't stop him from repeating what he did, then why wouldn't they assume that he'd do it again?  Furthermore, did they tell him not to drive on his own?  Why would they assume that he'd listen about that if he didn't listen about the drinking, especially if they let him drive?

No defects in the road in the cemetery, but it was narrow, dark, tree-filled, and gravestone filled (we clipped a gravestone, which sent us into the 360s), which is why it's supposed to be closed at night because it's dangerous to drive (along with respecting the dead), and that's also why the speed limit is 10 mph (maybe 5).

The caretaker allowed us to drink and provided alcohol to some of the kids that night, most of us at some point, and created the environment where everything was ok and actually encouraged.

So, yes, it was a slam dunk case.

But that's not a wooded area like Highlands Cemetery.

IT'A A CEMETERY. Of course it's filled with gravestones, and unlit with narrow roads. And as you said they have an extremely low speed limit posted, and yet you guys still decided to fly through there fully knowing all these things beforehand, and are upset that the cemetery didn't do a better job of protecting you guts from your stupidity. Despite my conservative rep, I often find myself favoring with plaintiffs fairly often, especially when it involves something they couldn't know about or foresee. This aspect of your case was completely forseeable, and I think the lawyer who you think shouldn't have been paid did a fine job of getting you the money he did. He took $200,000 out of how much?