I don't get it... besides the fact that anyone can sue for anything.
How does her estate (family?) sue and win saying it was his fault that she offed herself?
I don't get it... besides the fact that anyone can sue for anything.
How does her estate (family?) sue and win saying it was his fault that she offed herself?
...Juries sure are fickle beasts.
Note also the plaintiffs dismissed the claims against the guy who provided the handgun but continued after his (and her) employer, the deep-pocketed sheriff's department?
Although it might not be really relevant to the instant case, if she were of such a mind that she was often threatening suicide, was it negligent for the SO to keep her in employment?
I can halfway understand the suit against the officer, but I see no way at all that the lawsuit against the department has a leg to stand on. I doubt they knew anything about his home life, and unless we got some Minority Report stuff going on there's no way they could know the officer would toss her a gun.
When I was a young pup of a lawyer, you couldn't do this. Allowing the agent to be dismissed without dismissing the principle on a pure respondeat superior case is messed up.
Right? Now you have what used to be a defendant who has a whole lot of motivation to help the plaintiff stick it to what was his co-defendant. So wrong, on so many levels....
Since he was married to her a the time of her death, isn't HE the executor of her estate and the beneficiary of the lawsuit?
In 1999, the Ind. Sup. Ct. was very hard on defendants.
I'm talking about the claim where it says "the estate blamed the Sheriff's Department for negligently entrusting the weapon to John". No way the sheriffs department could have any inkling entrusting him with a weapon was negligent. I believe this is a separate claim to that of respondeat superior.Respondeat superior has nothing to do with what the employer knew. It only matters that he was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the negligence occurred (surely to be an issue on appeal). If you get in a car accident with a UPS truck when the driver is on his route, for UPS to be liable, they don't have to know how the driver was driving at the time.
Yep.
Pelo v. Franklin College of Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1999).
In 1999, the Ind. Sup. Ct. was very hard on defendants.
I'm talking about the claim where it says "the estate blamed the Sheriff's Department for negligently entrusting the weapon to John". No way the sheriffs department could have any inkling entrusting him with a weapon was negligent. I believe this is a separate claim to that of respondeat superior.
But hey, IANAL
I actually just read the case (it was a short read). Wow, big pro-plaintiff departure from the common law, with the goal of encouraging settlement.