Classless Lawyers

[Rotobeast]

(04-28-2016, 02:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was no defect with the road in the cemetery that caused him to crash.  That is the only way the cemetery could have been found liable, and this wreck was 100% driver error.

Does this mean that if I were drunk and wrecked because of a pothole, I could sue the city ?
Heck, maybe I'll crash in the mayor's driveway.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I am correct in understanding that you sued the cemetery after you got into a car with a drunk driver that crashed and caused your disabilities?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(04-28-2016, 02:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  It happens with drunk drivers all the time.

A driver either makes proper decisions or he does not.  In this case the driver was either too stupid or too intoxicated to drive.  Neither one of those things would have changed when he reached a public road. 

There was no defect with the road in the cemetery that caused him to crash.  That is the only way the cemetery could have been found liable, and this wreck was 100% driver error.

Well....he did say that the "people who lived in the cemetery" allowed parties to go on within the confines involving minors.  If they owned, or were employed by, the cemetery, wouldn't they be liable then?


......I just can't believe people are partying in a cemetery.  I can't stand to go to even visit my relatives.....and then the level of disrespect.

[*bfine32*]

(04-28-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This happens all the time.  Lawyers carry malpractice insurance to pay when they screw up.

A friend of mine who lives in Denver is going through this right now.  When he got divorced he used a friend of his who was an attorney.  He totally screwed up the case.  My friend got another lawyer who had to go back to court to get the original ruling set aside, but his original lawyer blatantly ***** up. 

So a friend of yours hired an incompetent lawyer that was a friend of his.....

Is there something more you want to share? 

As to the OP: I have no issue with the views Fred is giving on this case. As the saying goes:Be careful what you ask for. 

[coachmcneil71]

(04-28-2016, 05:01 PM)Wyche Wrote: Well....he did say that the "people who lived in the cemetery" allowed parties to go on within the confines involving minors.  If they owned, or were employed by, the cemetery, wouldn't they be liable then?


......I just can't believe people are partying in a cemetery.  I can't stand to go to even visit my relatives.....and then the level of disrespect.

Accidentally hit enter in rep statement before I was finished.

What I was trying to say is that I have already buried two of my brothers and I never go to their graves to drink one and party with my "homies". 

[CKwi88]

This all makes Stella Lieback look like a saint.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a friend of yours hired an incompetent lawyer that was a friend of his.....

Is there something more you want to share? 

As to the OP: I have no issue with the views Fred is giving on this case. As the saying goes:Be careful what you ask for. 

I am not licensed to practice in Colorado.

[fredtoast]

(04-28-2016, 05:01 PM)Wyche Wrote: Well....he did say that the "people who lived in the cemetery" allowed parties to go on within the confines involving minors.  If they owned, or were employed by, the cemetery, wouldn't they be liable then?


......I just can't believe people are partying in a cemetery.  I can't stand to go to even visit my relatives.....and then the level of disrespect.

I don't quite know what was going on.  Was it a party in a cemetery or a party at the home of the people who lived in the cemetery?  Did the people who lived there have the authority to let people party in the cemetery or just at their home?  If they were having a party with underage drinking at their home then they could be held liable.

I have never known of any people who actually live in a cemetery so this is a little confusing to me.

[StrictlyBiz]

(04-28-2016, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't quite know what was going on.  Was it a party in a cemetery or a party at the home of the people who lived in the cemetery?  Did the people who lived there have the authority to let people party in the cemetery or just at their home?  If they were having a party with underage drinking at their home then they could be held liable.

I have never known of any people who actually live in a cemetery so this is a little confusing to me.

Indeed.

Interesting thread and Im not sure I fully understand. 

I can't see how a cemetery is responsible for someone driving drunk on their property provided the roads are well maintained. But if they were provided alcohol by an employee/owner and allowed to drink on the property, then I do think that there is a liability issue. 

Can you clear this up and retell the story, Brad? 

[Rotobeast]

From what I'm understanding, the caretaker's quarters are in the rear of the cemetery, on the other side of a fence, and the cemetery roads are the only means of travel from the caretaker's quarters.
Correct, Brad ?

That is how the old cemeteries used to be.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-28-2016, 06:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: From what I'm understanding, the caretaker's quarters are in the rear of the cemetery, on the other side of a fence, and the cemetery roads are the only means of travel from the caretaker's quarters.
Correct, Brad ?

That is how the old cemeteries used to be.

I believe there are 2 access roads to that cemetery.  One off a small st hwy another rear entrance from a little neighborhood.  Doesn't look like there are any gates on the rear entrance.

[xxlt]

(04-28-2016, 12:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The lawyer asking people to lie was the cemetery's lawyer, not ours.
First guy for them was named Denny (Dennis, I guess) VonSomething (I think, but it's been so long that I'm not even sure anymore) and I'm not even sure who the second guy was.



Look into it and see that this judge, Gregory Bartlett, has a history of it.  He needed an excuse so it wouldn't raise any red flags.  Case-in-point: his reasoning for saying the driver's parents weren't at fault were because they "couldn't foresee that the driver would drink and drive in the cemetery," even though he had drank before in the cemetery and driven with his father, because another teen's parents couldn't foresee that he would have brought a gun to school and killed a bunch of classmates.  You want to talk about delusional?  Explain how those two situations are related.

Dennis Allerding used to do criminal law in Northern Kentucky. Could that have been the guy?

Judge Bartlett has been on the bench in Kenton County forever, but I really couldn't tell you his reputation among other attorneys, who would be the ones to ask what he is known for (but I do know judges have reputations and they aren't all good).

I do have sympathy for you, especially if you got bad representation. I knew people would question the OP, and to be fair Brad it was pretty confusing. I didn't say anything because 1. I knew others would ask the same questions and 2. I could tell you were trying to get a lot off of your chest at the same time and it all made sense to you as you were typing it.

But, back to the facts such as I know them - yeah, if there was a defendant who a lawyer coerced witnesses to lie about - that is pretty serious imho. I am going to go out on a limb and say the cemetery was Catholic (you went to Cov Cath, right?). And if it was, a hx of an employee getting high school kids drunk and then the church covering it up would be consistent with all kinds of patterns in the Catholic Church - involving all sorts of inappropriate conduct with kids and sometimes alcohol or other drugs as well. As a proud CCH alum you probably don't like thinking about that, but it is true, and lends credibility to your story about the lawyer getting kids to lie for the good ol' church and the good ol' caretaker.

[*bfine32*]

(04-28-2016, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not licensed to practice in Colorado.

...what else besides that went wrong?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(04-28-2016, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't quite know what was going on.  Was it a party in a cemetery or a party at the home of the people who lived in the cemetery?  Did the people who lived there have the authority to let people party in the cemetery or just at their home?  If they were having a party with underage drinking at their home then they could be held liable.

I have never known of any people who actually live in a cemetery so this is a little confusing to me.

I've seen some caretaker's quarters actually be in the cemetery.....where the caretaker lived on site. I'm a tad confused too, but I read it that someone lived within the premises and allowed several parties, including the one in question, at their residence on the site. If so....there's your liability. Am I correct in that thought?

[xxlt]

(04-28-2016, 05:29 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: This all makes Stella Lieback look like a saint.

Watch the movie, "Hot Coffee." You may find you no longer wish to crack wise about Stella.

[xxlt]

(04-28-2016, 08:21 PM)Wyche Wrote: I've seen some caretaker's quarters actually be in the cemetery.....where the caretaker lived on site.  I'm a tad confused too, but I read it that someone lived within the premises and allowed several parties, including the one in question, at their residence on the site.  If so....there's your liability.  Am I correct in that thought?

Sounds correct to me.

[BFritz21]

To anyone saying that the cemetery shouldn't be to blame:

The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked at dark (maybe earlier) to prevent anyone from driving back there because even driving at a normal speed would be dangerous. The caretaker's son wrecked back there driving normally underage even during the day, and the driver from my wreck had driven back there before with his father (and the caretaker knew).

Like I said, the caretaker used to buy us beer (even kegs) and party back there. So much went on back there that it was just the house and property where anything goes. Everyone at the party was drunk the night of the wreck.

I wanted to leave when the driver did a U-turn and sped back through the cemetery because he felt safe driving back there and not where I wanted to go.

He set the atmosphere for what happened and then admittedly let it happen.

[XenoMorph]

(04-28-2016, 11:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To anyone saying that the cemetery shouldn't be to blame:

The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked at dark (maybe earlier) to prevent anyone from driving back there because even driving at a normal speed would be dangerous. The caretaker's son wrecked back there driving normally underage even during the day, and the driver from my wreck had driven back there before with his father (and the caretaker knew).

Like I said, the caretaker used to buy us beer (even kegs) and party back there. So much went on back there that it was just the house and property where anything goes. Everyone at the party was drunk the night of the wreck.

I wanted to leave when the driver did a U-turn and sped back through the cemetery because he felt safe driving back there and not where I wanted to go.

He set the atmosphere for what happened and then admittedly let it happen.

so this guy was cool to you you and your friends **** up and now its all their fault.... sounds like america today.

[Au165]

(04-28-2016, 11:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: To anyone saying that the cemetery shouldn't be to blame:

The cemetery gates were supposed to be locked at dark (maybe earlier) to prevent anyone from driving back there because even driving at a normal speed would be dangerous.  The caretaker's son wrecked back there driving normally underage even during the day, and the driver from my wreck had driven back there before with his father (and the caretaker knew).  

Like I said, the caretaker used to buy us beer (even kegs) and party back there.  So much went on back there that it was just the house and property where anything goes.  Everyone at the party was drunk the night of the wreck.  

I wanted to leave when the driver did a U-turn and sped back through the cemetery because he felt safe driving back there and not where I wanted to go.  

He set the atmosphere for what happened and then admittedly let it happen.

He bought beer in the past, but did he that night? If so, then yes he would have been liable. If not then that has no context in this case. The gates were supposed to be locked? Says who? They are under no obligation to lock the cemetery at night. The fact the gate wasn't locked is in no way contributing to the wreck. If you weren't specifically invited onto that property (the cemetery specifically), even in the past if you were allowed, you were trespassing. It was private property and their is no expectations of lighting or safety considerations on that road other than that the road is driveable, which this one was. Lack of lighting was not a surprise it was understood as you entered as, by your own admission, you guys had been back there a bunch.

You lost because you had no case. Not because the jury, or the judge, or your lawyer screwed up, but rather because your actions and those of your friend let to the events of that night. It's hard to accept sometimes, but you and the guy driving were to blame....that is it.

[fredtoast]

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.