Author Topic: CIVIL LAW SUITS  (Read 15665 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2013, 05:20:30 PM »
Is it possible that the confidential part of the settlement is just the amount of the settlement (already redacted) and not the rest of the paperwork?

EDIT: If so, maybe nobody will object to the redacted document being released.

IMO, only but I would think the dollar amount would not exceed the coverage.  I have never seen the policy in effect  before Travelers took it over.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2013, 05:36:42 PM »
Is it possible that the confidential part of the settlement is just the amount of the settlement (already redacted) and not the rest of the paperwork?

EDIT: If so, maybe nobody will object to the redacted document being released.

Possible, yes.  Likely, no.  Insurance companies do not like it known that they are a soft touch, and most settlement agreements recite that disclosure of the existence of the agreement is a breach.  There are some exceptions to the non-disclosure, such as allowing financial professionals, lawyers, etc. know; and sometimes disclosure of the existence of an agreement is mandatory under public sunshine laws (not the case with Crump and the HOA).

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #62 on: April 11, 2013, 01:36:30 AM »

Anybody's guess, but in a quick internet search, it looks like wrongful death awards for things like medical services negligence to business negligence are in the $7M range, but could be much higher.

Thanks for doing the legwork.

Quote
The jury used the utility company's retained earnings as a barometer to calculate the punitive award.

It looks like it would depend on how deep a pocket the jury thinks the HOA is, as well as how strongly they feel about whatever they find to be the culpable negligence. That is, of course, assuming they find for the plaintiff.

It would be logical for 'punitive damages' to be treated as a fine and paid into the public coffers, but I guess legislators don't think it would look good to deprive the bereaved of their windfalls.

I'm thinking the most promising issue, against the HOA or the city, would be that Zimmerman should have been advised against going armed.

Zimmerman carrying was not discussed in the HOA president's FDLE interview, and is not mentioned in what I think is the summary of his FBI interview (117/284).

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2013, 07:16:49 AM »
NW guidelines say that watch persons should not carry firearms while on watch or patrol.  GZ has said he was headed to the store, ie, not on patrol.  I don't think NW watch persons are required to give up the  right to own and carry firearms.

I think the biggest issue the HOA probably faced was a background check on GZ.  I assume they didn't do one and I think that is where they would be most vulnerable.  GZ had an altercation with police and had a restraining order placed on him in a domestic violence dispute.  These issues won't come out in the criminal trial, but I believe would have been an issue in the civil action against the HOA who appointed GZ watch captain.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2013, 01:39:09 PM »
The defense filed a motion to unseal the confidential agreement filed with the court.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2013, 01:59:35 PM »
The defense filed a motion to unseal the confidential agreement filed with the court.

He's leaving it to Crump or the state to argue for no release, or limited release.  I imagine the HOA insurer will move to intervene, as well.  O'Mara has put on the record very good argument for why the settlement agreement should come in to the criminal trial, and points out that Tracy Martin's statements about who is heard screaming changed from "not Trayvon" to "was Trayvon," with Crump coming on the scene in between those conflicting statements.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2013, 03:27:35 PM »
I don't think NW watch persons are required to give up the  right to own and carry firearms.

I wonder if a judge would allow a defense attorney in a civil case to make an argument based on the right to bear arms. This isn't about the state infringing rights. It's a tort claim between private parties.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2013, 04:06:18 PM »
You're talking about the guidelines of a national organization to which the NW of RATL was not affiliated.

Zimmerman's NW got its guidelines from the Sanford PD. They said nothing about going armed, as discussed in the Dorival thread.

Passing the buck to the Sanford PD would probably be part of the HOA's defense strategy. It would be up to the jury whether to buy it.

Don't disagree with anything above.  The point about GZ needing to give up his personal rights to own a carry a weapon because it is the leader of a NW still stands. 

Quote
A self-serving statement from a witness with credibility issues. As far as I know it is uncorroborated, and we don't know what evidence might emerge to challenge it.

May well have been a self serving statement, but that doesn't mean its not true or able to be corroborated (ie it hasn't been proven false).  GZ added that he was headed to the store as he often did the grocery shopping on Sundays after dinner.  Could he produce credit card records showing grocery store purchases on Sunday evening?  I doubt we'll ever know, but the burden would be on the opposition to prove he wasn't headed to the store or on that he was on watch if they wanted to sue the HOA or police for not informing GZ that he shouldn't carry. 

If looking to sue the city, I would think NEN's instructions would be used as evidence against the city.  I imagine Crump doesn't want to tackle that one until after the criminal trial because I think some of the same instructions will be used in both cases with diametrically opposed objectives. 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2013, 04:36:30 PM »
May well have been a self serving statement, but that doesn't mean its not true

It means that the statement carries less weight than it would if it were not self-serving.

I find it hard to believe that you did not understand perfectly well what I meant. This straw man nonsense is tiresome and insulting.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2013, 11:44:19 PM »
His statement was not self-serving, and it was backed up by his father and sister, whom his father told the police had been texting with GZ about going to the store right before he left. Also, his father said he goes to the grocery store every Sunday night.

As for GZ having credibility issues, that is unsupported speculation.

I've deleted the original comment with these allegations. Please don't quote them or your responses will be deleted.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2013, 12:30:08 AM »
His statement was not self-serving

That could be a long argument on a minor point, so I'll agree to disagree.

Quote
and it was backed up by his father and sister, whom his father told the police

Hearsay. Or do you mean there is a statement from the sister? Your wording is confusing.

Quote
Also, his father said he goes to the grocery store every Sunday night.

Fair point.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2013, 01:21:23 AM »
The point about GZ needing to give up his personal rights to own a carry a weapon because it is the leader of a NW still stands.

RATL is private property. The HOA could prohibit anyone going armed in the common areas, just as it makes other rules for use of the common areas. 


Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2013, 07:01:36 AM »
It means that the statement carries less weight than it would if it were not self-serving.

I find it hard to believe that you did not understand perfectly well what I meant. This straw man nonsense is tiresome and insulting.

The statement only carries less weight if its not true.  That its potentially self-serving subjects it to more scrutiny, but does not give it less weight. 

I understood perfectly well what you meant and I disagreed.

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #73 on: April 12, 2013, 07:35:48 AM »
His statement was not self-serving, and it was backed up by his father and sister, whom his father told the police had been texting with GZ about going to the store right before he left. Also, his father said he goes to the grocery store every Sunday night.

As for GZ having credibility issues, that is unsupported speculation.

I've deleted the original comment with these allegations. Please don't quote them or your responses will be deleted.

Didn't his Father ASK George if Sunday was indeed his typical night for Grocery shopping?

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2013, 03:48:50 AM »
Would the negotiations between Crump and the HOA and/or insurance company be recorded or witnessed? The reason I ask is a post made on CTH which asks if Crump had misrepresented his knowledge of Trayvon's school disciplinary actions or LE encounters would it effect the recent HOA settlement. Waltherppk responds with:

Quote
If there were made false representations to induce an insurance company to settle it is insurance fraud which is a criminal offense as well as voiding the settlement agreement.

If the negotiations aren't recorded or witnessed it seems that would be difficult to prove.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking