05-05-2016, 04:14 AM
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.
(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.
