Ferguson Riots

#177
#177
Grand Vol said:
Did it specify in the Neighborhood Watch agreement he was allowed to be armed?
Click to expand...


I don't know that there was a written agreement at all; I don't know whether, if there was, it discussed that; and I don't know whether the association members actually knew he was armed, regardless of what it said.

Whatever investigation was done by the association's insurer was quick and evidently compelled them to feel that their defense options were limited and that, whatever they were, compared to the media attention they were going to have to deal with, they just wanted out.

I can see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#178
#178
lawgator1 said:
I don't know that there was a written agreement at all; I don't know whether, if there was, it discussed that; and I don't know whether the association members actually knew he was armed, regardless of what it said.

Whatever investigation was done by the association's insurer was quick and evidently compelled them to feel that their defense options were limited and that, whatever they were, compared to the media attention they were going to have to deal with, they just wanted out.

I can see that.
Click to expand...

So basically, you are graduating yet again with honors from college of MSU. That's Makin Sh*t Up.

Technically, the State of Florida should have been sued since they were the ones that permitted him a CCW permit in the first place. The HOA had nothing to do with that.

Stop making yourself look foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#179
#179
Grand Vol said:
So basically, you are graduating yet again with honors from college of MSU. That's Makin Sh*t Up.

Technically, the State of Florida should have been sued since they were the ones that permitted him a CCW permit in the first place. The HOA had nothing to do with that.

Stop making yourself look foolish.
Click to expand...


Issuing a CCW to someone does not create a private cause of action. This is so because there is no governmental duty of reasonable care to unknown third parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#181
#181
lawgator1 said:
Issuing a CCW to someone does not create a private cause of action. This is so because there is no governmental duty of reasonable care to unknown third parties.
Click to expand...

You implied the HOA allowed him to be armed. Actually, no, you stated the HOA allowed him to patrol with a gun. Meaning they were complicit. I called your BS. Don't backtrack.

How is the HOA in any way, shape or form responsible for this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#183
#183
Grand Vol said:
You implied the HOA allowed him to be armed. Actually, no, you stated the HOA allowed him to patrol with a gun. Meaning they were complicit. I called your BS. Don't backtrack.

How is the HOA in any way, shape or form responsible for this?
Click to expand...

They were the only possible entity with the ability to pay and the lawyer to collect fees from.

No more complicated that that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#185
#185
Grand Vol said:
You implied the HOA allowed him to be armed. Actually, no, you stated the HOA allowed him to patrol with a gun. Meaning they were complicit. I called your BS. Don't backtrack.

How is the HOA in any way, shape or form responsible for this?
Click to expand...


There would be two theories of liability.

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.

Theory 1 is vicarious liability. It is premised on respondeat superior. This requires showing he was the association's agent and that he acted negligently. The association is automatically liable, even if the association itself did nothing wrong.

Think about a grocery store. Employee stocking shelves runs over your foot and you are hurt. You sue the store, not the employee. The employee acts on their behalf. The store is liable even if the store itself did nothing wrong.

Theory 2 is active liability. It is premised on a showing that the association negligently appointed him, or allowed him to continue to be, their neighborhood watch guy. That could be proof they put him in charge without conducting a reasonable investigation into his background. Or it could be a claim that after he took the role, the association became aware he was an imbecile and let him continue.

Theory 2 is the one requiring evidence the association itself acted negligently. Theory 1 does not require ANY evidence that the association did anything wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#187
#187
lawgator1 said:
There would be two theories of liability.

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.

Theory 1 is vicarious liability. It is premised on respondeat superior. This requires showing he was the association's agent and that he acted negligently. The association is automatically liable, even if the association itself did nothing wrong.

Think about a grocery store. Employee stocking shelves runs over your foot and you are hurt. You sue the store, not the employee. The employee acts on their behalf. The store is liable even if the store itself did nothing wrong.

Theory 2 is active liability. It is premised on a showing that the association negligently appointed him, or allowed him to continue to be, their neighborhood watch guy. That could be proof they put him in charge without conducting a reasonable investigation into his background. Or it could be a claim that after he took the role, the association became aware he was an imbecile and let him continue.

Theory 2 is the one requiring evidence the association itself acted negligently. Theory 1 does not require ANY evidence that the association did anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Theory 3 - slimy lawyer concocts BS to get paid. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top