It seems like a lot of convoluted reasoning is being applied by the Ohio court to arrive at a conclusion that reflects the proper “empathy” for the plaintiffs.
The article makes it clear the 17 year old in this matter was deemed competent to be treated as an adult by the justice system (ten year sentence). That would seem to imply intent. I don’t see how that can be equated to an accident as regards the parents.
Lets just twist this think a little tighter and make it fit – The kid was 17 years old – grant it a “minor” but certainly able to make a conscious decision to commit a crime (in any book)
Negligent in “failure to supervise”….
Lets just step back and ask the courts just how you are supposed to “supervise” a 17 year old without being accused of abuse, mental anguish, violation of civil rights, “bruising their ego”, suppressing their creative expression, invasion of privacy, and whatever else you can think of?
Spare the rod – Spoil the Child – If the kid was that disturbed, you can bet if they made any attempts to intervene – they would have had the ACLU all over their butts not to mention being accused of abuse and probably put in jail themselves – or had their own throats slit in the middle of the night because their hands were tied (no pun intended) in getting a grip on their own kid in the first place…
certainly an interesting way to fashion coverage. It would appear the plaintiffs had one heck of a bright attorney coupled with an activist court system hellbent on finding money.
The court didn’t find that the parents were guilty of “negligent supervision”, only that the insurance policy covered it, and thus the insurance company had the duty to defend. This seems the correct interpretation.
It is now up to the trial court and jury to determine if the parents were guilty of “negligent supervision” and award damages if they were.
I agree that in this case, given that no other facts come to light, the verdict should be for the parents.
Another case of a lawyer looking for money, I don’t think it’s involves convuluted reasoning on the courts part.
I remember hearing about this incident when it happened, and remember that the son did have some pretty serious behavioral/mental issues. I’m not sure why he was seen fit to stand trial when he obviously doesn’t know right from wrong and probably needs constant supervision.
This story makes me a little sick though – people are attacked and intentionally injured thousands of times every day. Why should this family profit so much just because their daughter happened to be attacked by a member of a wealthy family? What about the average victim out there who’s attacked by your every-day, garden variety criminal?
This case was about the wealthy family getting to keep their wealth since without insurance coverage, it would be their own money. The underlying judgment was from 2005 and was not subject to collateral attack. This way the insurance-paying public pays for this family that allowed the son with a history of violent attacks to carry a knife instead of them paying the cost.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It seems like a lot of convoluted reasoning is being applied by the Ohio court to arrive at a conclusion that reflects the proper “empathy” for the plaintiffs.
The article makes it clear the 17 year old in this matter was deemed competent to be treated as an adult by the justice system (ten year sentence). That would seem to imply intent. I don’t see how that can be equated to an accident as regards the parents.
Lets just twist this think a little tighter and make it fit – The kid was 17 years old – grant it a “minor” but certainly able to make a conscious decision to commit a crime (in any book)
Negligent in “failure to supervise”….
Lets just step back and ask the courts just how you are supposed to “supervise” a 17 year old without being accused of abuse, mental anguish, violation of civil rights, “bruising their ego”, suppressing their creative expression, invasion of privacy, and whatever else you can think of?
Spare the rod – Spoil the Child – If the kid was that disturbed, you can bet if they made any attempts to intervene – they would have had the ACLU all over their butts not to mention being accused of abuse and probably put in jail themselves – or had their own throats slit in the middle of the night because their hands were tied (no pun intended) in getting a grip on their own kid in the first place…
certainly an interesting way to fashion coverage. It would appear the plaintiffs had one heck of a bright attorney coupled with an activist court system hellbent on finding money.
The court didn’t find that the parents were guilty of “negligent supervision”, only that the insurance policy covered it, and thus the insurance company had the duty to defend. This seems the correct interpretation.
It is now up to the trial court and jury to determine if the parents were guilty of “negligent supervision” and award damages if they were.
I agree that in this case, given that no other facts come to light, the verdict should be for the parents.
Another case of a lawyer looking for money, I don’t think it’s involves convuluted reasoning on the courts part.
I remember hearing about this incident when it happened, and remember that the son did have some pretty serious behavioral/mental issues. I’m not sure why he was seen fit to stand trial when he obviously doesn’t know right from wrong and probably needs constant supervision.
This story makes me a little sick though – people are attacked and intentionally injured thousands of times every day. Why should this family profit so much just because their daughter happened to be attacked by a member of a wealthy family? What about the average victim out there who’s attacked by your every-day, garden variety criminal?
This case was about the wealthy family getting to keep their wealth since without insurance coverage, it would be their own money. The underlying judgment was from 2005 and was not subject to collateral attack. This way the insurance-paying public pays for this family that allowed the son with a history of violent attacks to carry a knife instead of them paying the cost.