Classless Lawyers

[xxlt]

(05-05-2016, 03:16 PM)Penn Wrote: 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.

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...