Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An intruder breaks into a guys house, guy shoots intruder, intruder's mom sues.
I haven't looked it up, but I'll be my paycheck the intruder has a previous criminal record.
ANDERSON, S.C. — Two lawsuits have been filed by the mother of a man who was fatally shot by an Anderson homeowner who said someone was trying to break into his house. The Anderson Independent-Mail reports Jo Pickens, mother of Leandus Pickens, filed two lawsuits Tuesday against Anderson funeral home owner Marcus Brown.
The first lawsuit says Brown caused the wrongful death of Leandus Pickens last year by “negligently and recklessly discharging a firearm.” The second lawsuit says Brown “failed to exercise due care” before shooting Pickens.
Each lawsuit seeks $10 million in damages.
Brown says he was acting in self-defense when he shot an unknown intruder who climbed through a window of his home. Prosecutor Chrissy Adams announced Oct. 1 that no criminal charges would be filed against Brown
States really need to pass laws protecting people defending themselves from these types of frivolous lawsuits. Pickens estate should pay for the homeowners defense.
This is an interesting case as the shooter was alleged to have been in a romantic relationship with the victim. He received several phone calls from the victim just before the shooting.
An intruder breaks into a guys house, guy shoots intruder, intruder's mom sues.
I haven't looked it up, but I'll be my paycheck the intruder has a previous criminal record.
ANDERSON, S.C. — Two lawsuits have been filed by the mother of a man who was fatally shot by an Anderson homeowner who said someone was trying to break into his house. The Anderson Independent-Mail reports Jo Pickens, mother of Leandus Pickens, filed two lawsuits Tuesday against Anderson funeral home owner Marcus Brown.
The first lawsuit says Brown caused the wrongful death of Leandus Pickens last year by “negligently and recklessly discharging a firearm.” The second lawsuit says Brown “failed to exercise due care” before shooting Pickens.
Each lawsuit seeks $10 million in damages.
Brown says he was acting in self-defense when he shot an unknown intruder who climbed through a window of his home. Prosecutor Chrissy Adams announced Oct. 1 that no criminal charges would be filed against Brown
First of all, no one should be able to stop a lawsuit from being filed. A motion to such an obvioulsy frivilous suit is a 4 to 5 hour job. You can find attorneys that will do this work for less than $150 per hour outside of the bigger cities, and for $200 per hour in the bigger cities. Its a lot of money, but it costs money to protect yourself. But that is how we prevent frivilous lawsuits, we dismiss them when the defendant sets forth why it is frivilous.
I've been doing this a long time and have seen some crazt fact patterns. Saw a case once where a dad knew his daughter was inviting her boyfriend in after dark for activities he did not approve of, so he waited up and shot the boy. He claimed he felt he was shooting an intruder. Most others felt he was trying to kill an unarmed teen that he knew was not a threat to anyone in that home and who was invited there. You can not assume something is frivilous without hearing the facts, you only get to do that when both sides have a chance to present them.
Efforts to pass a federal law with penalties for filing frivolous suits have been blocked by Democrats for years.
Being a democrat or a republican should not impact this at all, there should be no cost (other than filing fees) to sue someone for anything, no matter how frivilous another thinks the case is. There is already protections in place for abuse of process. If a person files multiple lawsuits against a party, loses a cas4 and refiles it in another jurisdiction or venue, or tries to just refile it in the same court, there are already procedures to protect against such a party. I've never had one case for civil contempt be denied in these situations. The party doing this will be forced to pay, if you are correct.
Politics don't matter to me, access to the Court is a must in any society. You put any type of restriction on it, and those who lose access to justice have traditionally turned to violence. Its simple enough to dismiss a suit. Court's will provide prevailing party costs and in some cases attorney fees, so the cost to defend yourself can be little or nothing.
Anyone is free to file a lawsuit, even if frivolous. This will be thrown out due to the castle doctrine laws in SC which protect people from this very thing. Basically, you get killed committing a crime in SC, your relatives do not get to try and profit off your crimes via the courts.
The problem with this thread is that there is a constitutional right under virtually every state constitution to file a lawsuit, so that one can have access to the courts to redress their grievances. You cannot preempt someone completely from filing a lawsuit because until a judge has had an opportunity to look at their pleadings, its impossible to tell whether a case is frivolous or not.
People do occasionally abuse this right and every state I am aware of has provisions in their code that give judges the discretion to impose sanctions for cases that are completely without merit or "frivolous". Most states model their civil rules of procedure on the federal rules of civil procedure. Rule 11 gives a judge the authority to impose these sanctions. An example of what I am talking about is this:
(a) Representations to court. By presenting a pleading, written motion, or other paper to the court an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(b) (1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(b) (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
(b) (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(b) (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(C) Sanctions. If after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. (Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11)
I do know a few lawyers and litigants who have been penalized thousands of dollars for filing a frivolous claim. Its not something one forgets quickly. It does happen and every state I know has a mechanism to make it happen.
What I don't ever recall happening in my 31 year career as an attorney is a defendant being hit with sanctions for filing a frivolous defense to a claim. Let me give an example: Jones drives his automobile into the rear of Smith's car while Smith is stopped at a red light. Smith is badly injured as a result. Smith sues Jones for damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses. Jones's attorney files an Answer to the complaint alleging that Smith was guilty of comparative negligence, or that he did something that contributed to the accident. The simple answer is that Smith was stopped at a light minding his own business when he was struck by Jones. He did nothing to contribute to this accident at all. Yet, I see this kind of answer routinely filed by attorneys who represent insurance companies every day.
My point is that sanctions should cut both ways. They should apply to both those who file frivolous cases and those make frivolous defenses. The language in Rule 11 allows for this. However, the rule is only applied one way.
Lawsuits are distressing. However, the right to sue is a critical right that allows individuals to redress their grievances.
Congress should stay out of the state legal systems completely. Imposition of these sanctions is a matter of state, not federal law.
Last edited by markg91359; 12-23-2015 at 03:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
