EP 702- Home Alone: A Personal Injury Quagmire

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to The Jury Is Out, a podcast for trial attorneys who want to sharpen their skills and better serve their clients. Your co-hosts are John Simon, founder of the Simon Law Firm, Tim Cronin, personal injury trial attorney at the Simon Law Firm, and St. Louis attorney Erich Vieth.

Erich Vieth:

Welcome to another episode of The Jury Is Out. I’m Erich Vieth.

Tim Cronin:

I’m Tim Cronin.

John Simon:

I’m John Simon.

Tim Cronin:

So today in our festive spirit, we’re going to talk about a Christmas movie that I imagine most people have seen and examine it from a personal injury liability standpoint. So this is Home Alone, a Personal Injury Quagmire. So for anybody, I watch this movie probably every year, but I have younger kids and they love it. So for anybody living under a rock, here’s the plot. Eight-year-old Kevin McAllister, played by the adorable McCauley-Calkin, acts out the night before his big family is going to leave on a Christmas trip to Paris. So his mom makes him sleep in the attic. After the rest of the family mistakenly leaves for the airport without Kevin, he awakens to an empty house. He assumes his wish that he stated in anger the night before to have his family disappear has come true. He is initially elated until he realizes he must defend his home from two burglars, Harry and Marv.

One of them is played by the wonderful Joe Pache, and he defends it using elaborate booby traps while also learning self-reliance and bonding with a mysterious neighbor who he’s initially afraid of, Old Man Marley, before his mom returns to it. We’re going to talk about his conduct and how he defends his home from the two burglars. And if there were a lawsuit about it, what would happen? So this isn’t a Christmas movie. It’s a torts exam. If this happened in real life, who’s getting sued? What’s the legal landscape? So who owes a duty of care? Erich, I’m sure you do much more research in writing than John and I do. We’re more fact lawyers. There’s a distinction in the duty of care owed in a premises liability case in almost every state. And I know in Missouri it’s broken down. It depends on what the status of the person on the property is.

Erich Vieth:

That’s right. There’s three broad categories and they’re taught in first year torts.

Tim Cronin:

So one of them is an invitee. The wet bandits, which is what the two burglars are, are- They’re not invitees. Are not invitees. Okay. That’s invited for a business or public purpose such as a customer in a store, a hotel guest, something like that. For invitees, you have to inspect for dangers, warn of hidden hazards, maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. They are not invitees. The second is licensees, which is someone on the property with implied permission for their own benefit, not for the owner’s business, like a social guest, utility worker. You have to warn of known hidden dangers, but you don’t need to actively inspect for them. And then separately is a trespasser. So the wet bandits who are trying to break in to rob the house are trespassers. That’s someone on the property without permission. You can be both a trespasser and a criminal and a plaintiff.

So the duty owed is to refrain from … It’s no longer just a negligent standard to refrain from willful or wanton injury. There’s also duties for children trespassers that doesn’t apply to this case.

Erich Vieth:

And this is not just an abstract conversation. There was actually a case, I think it’s back in 60s, maybe 65 or so in maybe California where somebody set up a trap gun in their house or their business because it was repeatedly being burgled and then a burglar got hurt with the gun. In other words, it’s a gun that went off when someone opened the door or a window, something like that, got sued and I believe there was a judgment. So this- A tinke

Tim Cronin:

Lost. Yeah. Yeah,

Erich Vieth:

Right. The homeowner

John Simon:

Lost for defending their house. Well, it’s funny. I mean, today now in Missouri, the homeowner could sit there with a gun and shoot the person, right?

Tim Cronin:

I’m not sure the status in Missouri, but definitely-

John Simon:

Stand your ground. Yeah, we have a castle doctrine in Missouri. Castle doctrine, stand your

Tim Cronin:

Ground.That

John Simon:

Was the case on the Merrimack. Remember the case on the Merrimack where a landowner-

Tim Cronin:

But that’s criminal as opposed to civil, right?

John Simon:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it’s still, just to put it in context, I guess what you’re saying is that if you did that, you could still be sued civilly.

Tim Cronin:

Yes.

John Simon:

Because stand your ground is a criminal doctrine.

Tim Cronin:

And Erich, you pointed out before we got started, there are current real world … I mean, this is not that far out of what is commonly happening all over the city in lots of places. And people are stealing Amazon packages off of people’s porches and there’s examples of people setting up … What are some of the examples you told me to try

Erich Vieth:

To- Well, maybe all of you have seen these on videos, on YouTube videos, but there’s glitter bombs. You can watch people explain- What’s a glitter bomb? Someone steals a package and you are so fed up because this happened before probably, or it happens in your neighborhood. So you set up a fake package on your porch and when they pick it up, it’s got a level sensor or some other sensor that when they start lifting it and taking it away, it blows up and spreads glitter. Sounds like a defective product to me. Or ink onto the criminal, onto the person stealing your package, and then they can be easily identified later. So they have various ways to do it. They have various mechanisms for making the package blow up, but they have die packs, glitter. And let’s see, there was a third one I looked at, stink or fart bombs.

John Simon:

Amazon delivers those? Yeah, you probably get it delivered. Set it up right on my porch. I got another idea for that. If that’s happening to you, this is a better way to do it from a liability standpoint, I think. What you might want to do is take your garbage, wrap it up real nice in an Amazon box and put it on your porch. How about that?

Erich Vieth:

You’re onto something because there was a guy who went on YouTube and said, “I had an old TV. I bought a new TV. I had the old TV. I didn’t know what to do with it. ” I wrapped it up in the package that the new one came in and put it on my porch. And he’s got the video of the guy carrying away the old broken

John Simon:

TV. In New York years ago, there was a garbage strike and they were interviewing people because it had gotten pretty bad. The trash is all piling up in the street. And they talked to one guy who did exactly that. He said he would take his week’s garbage, box it up, wrap it with wrapping paper, and leave it in the backseat of his unlocked car. And he said he didn’t have any garbage problems. It was always taken away immediately, very promptly, more promptly than the normal trash pickup.

Erich Vieth:

It didn’t explode for icing on the table.

John Simon:

No, it didn’t explode. But here’s the other thing too that I find kind of crazy is, what kind of gun was it? A zip gun or something or the gun in the example that you gave, the case from the 1960s. It was a real gun. A real gun, like a shotgun. Right. And so how do you know it’s not going to be some relative or something walking in the door?

Erich Vieth:

Or a kid going in just to look around not to steal anything. And then you would not have a right to shoot a kid, like say an eight-year-old kid, unarmed, just nosy. You wouldn’t have a right to shoot them yourself because it’s just a kid not

John Simon:

Threatening you. I don’t think you can shoot a fleeing felon now. Right. You can’t. You cannot. You can only use deadly force to oppose deadly force, right? Right. So I don’t know how you’d be able to set a gun up in your house. My cousin lived in a bad neighborhood and he had a front door and a back door and he had gotten broken into a couple times. I think one time at night when he was there, somebody was in his house and he took some nails and nailed his front door shut permanently. I told him it probably was violating several building codes-

Tim Cronin:

Fire codes. Yes.

Erich Vieth:

But you can see how in some neighborhoods, I mean, a lot of us live in neighborhoods where this is not a common thing. There’s people in this city, I know, who are in neighborhoods where they are always worried about someone breaking into their house, where they’ve had it happen several times. And you can see how someone could reach a level of desperation where they’re thinking, “I’m not going to let it happen again.” Especially if you have kids, you can see why someone would be driven to

John Simon:

Those- Well, someone you and I both know who has an auto repair shop in St. Louis in a bad neighborhood, he was getting broken into multiple times. They’d come in and steal parts or they’d steal tools and he decided to spend the night in the shop and he did. And of course, I think he did it for a week or so. He just slept there. And sure enough, the guy who this repeat burglar came in and he confronted him and had … I think he beat him up with a baseball bat and then called the police after the guy was injured and waiting there. And the cops came in, handcuffed him and took him away, not the guy that broke in. I guess you can’t beat somebody up for stealing something, right?

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. Also, similar to Kevin McAllister, premeditated planned to harm those guys.

John Simon:

Well, so that’s interesting. I guess that’s a really good example of what we’re talking about in the movie because right away when you brought this up, home alone, I’m thinking two burglars, what kind of rights do they have period? You ought to be able to do what you want with them, right? But maybe not.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. I mean, and criminal and civil are I think different, right? So criminal intent by a trespasser does eliminate liability? Not necessarily. They didn’t sign a waiver, right? But even trespassers can recover, I think, if the homeowner intentionally hurts them. It doesn’t mean a jury will do it, but I think it would survive summary judgment. The question is foreseeability. Did Kevin anticipate their arrival and plan the injuries? Yes.

John Simon:

Do that makes him more civilly liable?

Tim Cronin:

Yes.

John Simon:

Because he knew who they were or just generally knew somebody was coming in?

Tim Cronin:

Because he intended to harm them. Even though they were trespassers, he intended to harm them. So since they’re trespassers, it’s not a negligence standard. It’s not just a duty breach causation damages. His traps are intentional torts, not accidents, which means from a premises liability standpoint, even for trespassers, they can at least get to a jury.

John Simon:

So I’m sitting here smiling because I’m thinking of presenting that, I know what the law is the law.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

John Simon:

Present that case to a jury and see how that comes

Tim Cronin:

Out. Well, right. We’re going to come back to that at the end. But the intentional torts are battery assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I think you have a punitive damages claim too. I don’t think a jury’s going to give them any money.

Erich Vieth:

So if I could throw the castle doctrine, here’s a general description. It’s the legal principle rooted in common law, but also in statute in some states that allows individuals to use force, including deadly force in some situations to defend their home or legally occupied space against an intruder or attacker without a legal obligation to retreat first. It stems from the idea that a person’s home is their castle providing enhanced self-defense rights within that space. You can use reasonable force, a non-deadly force if the intruder poses non-life threatening risk, like a simple trespass and deadly force if the homeowner reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury or forcible felony. And this is where it gets squishy, like burglary, robbery, rape, or kidnapping. Missouri has a statutory version of that, and it allows people to use physical force, including deadly force to defend themselves and the residents.

And when it’s necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury, an attempt to unlawfully enter or remain in the space or the commission of a forcible felony, for instance, burglary or assault.

John Simon:

So can your status change once you’re in the house? In other words, if you’re invited in the house and you start being a danger to the owner of the house, does a castle doctrine apply or does it just apply for someone who you didn’t invite into the house?

Erich Vieth:

I’m not deep into the weeds on this, but it seems like if the burglar comes in with a gun and then you pull a gun on the burglar and the burglar drops the gun and says, puts the hands up and goes, “I’m leaving.” It seems like you can no longer use deadly force at that point. That seems pretty clear. That is reasonable.

Tim Cronin:

That is recent. I would hope that that’s the law. I would hope it’s not like you could still shoot him. When’s the last time you saw Home Alone? You got grandkids.

John Simon:

I think I’ve seen it in the last year or two.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

I would say before you were born, what year was this movie?

Tim Cronin:

I was born in 1982 and the movie came out in 1991, I think.

Erich Vieth:

Okay. Well,

Tim Cronin:

No.

John Simon:

You didn’t see it in 82.

Tim Cronin:

No. No, I imagined it. They made a Home Alone two in New York. Donald Trump makes an appearance. It’s not as good as Home Alone one. He gets trapped in New York City. So some of the traps are, he intentionally freezes ice on the front steps, which is, I mean, the ice was deliberately created, so intentional. He puts micromachine. Remember the micromachine cars from the 90s? The little tiny cars that we gave to kids that are absolutely a choke hazard. Do you remember that? Generally. Yeah. He puts micromachines all over the floor, which is a dangerous condition and hazard, also intentional.

Erich Vieth:

So it makes the floor slippery if you step on the cars?

Tim Cronin:

It’s like- Tripping heavy. Yeah, you trip. The wheels come out from under you and you fall. Could break your neck. He heats up a doorknob. Do you remember that one from the movie?

John Simon:

Oh, I

Erich Vieth:

Remember that,

Tim Cronin:

Or that. So intending to cause burns.

Erich Vieth:

And he brands the

Tim Cronin:

Guy. Brand

Erich Vieth:

Hand.

Tim Cronin:

Yep. Paint can to the face. That’s one of my favorites.

John Simon:

So wait a minute. Remember the scene where the burglar sticks his head into the door?

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

John Simon:

The dog door or the cat door? And then it’s a torch. Yeah. I mean, what about that? He sticks his head right in the door trying to get in and harm the child. Right. I think he got a better shot arguing that one. Didn’t he shoot him with a pellet gun?

Tim Cronin:

He had a blow torch. Okay.

Erich Vieth:

Not messing around. So I’ve had it in my house, a prior house, a dog door, and people would often say, “Well, aren’t you worried about going to sleep? You got a dog door?” And I’m thinking, “Do you think a burglar’s really going to stick their head in a dog door?” Well,

Tim Cronin:

Joe Pesci did.

Erich Vieth:

Well, how big is your dog door? Well, it’s big enough to get a medium sized dog in and out. About a medium sized person? Sure. If you squished in. Leave my dog door open at night? So I’ve heard ex- burglars, they claim to be ex- burglars that say the thing that scares us the most about burglarising houses is dogs.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

So I’ve had, not in the current house.

Tim Cronin:

They wouldn’t be scared of

Erich Vieth:

My dog. I’ll say clearly for the record, but in prior houses, I’ve had dog doors. I never had a problem with someone coming in.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. My dog would not

Erich Vieth:

Scare them and he would-

John Simon:

So a burglar is when you’re in the house, right? Robber is when you’re out of the house, or does it make a difference?

Erich Vieth:

A burglar is somebody who enters a space who basically trespasses to do a felony or a crime within this space. And a robber is somebody that’s a forcible stealing on the outside. So not in a house. Yeah. Well, maybe you can go in and rob too.

Tim Cronin:

I don’t know.

Erich Vieth:

Maybe a burglary could be you trespass into the house to then rob.

Tim Cronin:

So for all of these, all of his different traps, they all are like … Look, he has blueprints. I think that if I were representing the wet bandits, which I would not do, my exhibit one would be his blueprints of planning.

Erich Vieth:

What is that word you’re using? Wet bandits?

Tim Cronin:

They’re the wet bandits.

Erich Vieth:

What does wet mean?

Tim Cronin:

It’s a joke in the movie. So every time they rob one of the houses, one of them turns all the faucets on and plugs up the drains so that the house floods and he thinks it’s funny and they call themselves the wet bandits. That’s not funny. No. Robbing them also isn’t funny, but yeah. I’d rather get robbed. I also have my house ruined with water.

Erich Vieth:

I have sensors from Ring. If I had to pick. I have Ring sensors on the floors in my house to make sure that water doesn’t ruin my house. It’s a big deal.

John Simon:

That’s a really good idea. Is that something new or?

Erich Vieth:

No, not really. Probably within the last five years at least, but you can get these little capsules you put on the bathroom floor or under the sink. And if you get a Ring system, probably other systems too. And if they sense a little moisture down there, it sends you a signal. It says there’s water on your floor.

Tim Cronin:

So what defenses would … Let’s first just think about, and there’ll be implications to this-

Erich Vieth:

Was that our first product placement?

Tim Cronin:

It might. It might’ve

John Simon:

Been. Yeah. Who makes it? You need to give a good full placement. Where do you

Erich Vieth:

Get it? There’s a system called Ring, R-I-N-G. Okay. And they have it, and I suspect other makers have something similar.

Tim Cronin:

Would you make a lost wages claim if you were representing the wet pandits? He prevents them from robbing the house and therefore they do not make their income.

John Simon:

That’s sick.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

John Simon:

Well, why is it relevant why they’re coming in the house?

Tim Cronin:

Because it goes to the duty. I guess they’re trespassers, regardless of what-

John Simon:

Couldn’t they just say we were just trespassing? I just wanted to come in and get some rest on the couch and watch a little TV.

Erich Vieth:

Wait a minute. This is an economist would say this is stimulating the economy to go in and rob houses because the person has to hire someone to repair the door and they have to go rebuy all the stuff and that money goes into the system and helps America.

Tim Cronin:

Also, the burglar presumably would spend 100% of the income that they earn from this as opposed to a wealthier person who’s been burgeled, who saves about 50% of their income. So it’s circulating more money in the economy. Solid arguments to make to a jury.

John Simon:

I just don’t see this as any kind of case that’s got legs at all. I just don’t. I can think of some lawyers that would file the case. No, I can’t even think of lawyers that I know that would file it.

Tim Cronin:

Wasn’t there a case that the guy won 20 some years ago where a burglar fell in a house while he was robbing somebody and got injured because of a dangerous condition and won the case- Wasn’t it a skylight or something?

Erich Vieth:

It was something like that. It was a skylight. I just looked it up before. On the way over, I was talking to my AI in my car and she said it was a skylight. I don’t know if it was an institution of some sort and they had painted it black and it was a nighttime trespass or burglary attempt and the person fell through the skylight and they did get a judgment or a verdict.

John Simon:

Wow. That had to be some really good

Erich Vieth:

Lawyering. Masterful voir dire.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. Masterful voir dire.

Erich Vieth:

Yeah. Give me 500 jurors.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. How many people were on the panel? They ended up with burglars on their jury. Judge, we can’t get a fair shake unless we only have burglars.

Erich Vieth:

And they ask them, “Are you still doing it? ” Yeah. No. No, not anymore.

Tim Cronin:

So defenses, we’ve talked about self-defense, defensive property. I think it comes down to whether it’s reasonable force or not. And from a civil context. Intent wipes out a lot of his defenses. A comparative fault. In Missouri, we have pure comparative fault. So even if the jury could put 99% fault on the wet bandits, but 1% fault on neither Kevin or his parents, they could still recover 1% of their damages.

Erich Vieth:

Don’t some of these fall into an intentional tort?

John Simon:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

So there’s no

John Simon:

Comparative for intentional- Is there a comparative fault in an intention? I think there is. It’s still negligence, right?

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. I mean, assumption of the risk would be one, right? Is assumption of the risk of defense to an intentional

Erich Vieth:

Tool? We deal in negligence and not too often intentional torts.

Tim Cronin:

I mean, they shouldn’t anticipate someone defending their home and themselves. I don’t know if you can have comparative fault in an intentional tort. I would think- My

John Simon:

Sense is that- I think you can.

Tim Cronin:

That would be my sense.

John Simon:

That would be my guess is that

Tim Cronin:

You can. State by state, there would be minor liability issues, whether a minor can be held liable or parents on the hook for it.

John Simon:

So what is the law in civil in criminal? I’ve never read it in civil. I guess there is no particular age in civil. It’s just you take the age into consideration in deciding whether that person was negligent.

Tim Cronin:

Negligent. A minor can be sued.

John Simon:

But on the other hand, I think there are specific- And there can be insurance coverage for that. Specific prohibitions on charging a minor with a crime because don’t they have to have a hearing?

Erich Vieth:

I used to work in a juvenile court and there’s an age cutoff and it’s a little fuzzy at the edges, but if you’re a, I believe it was less than 17, and when I was working there, this is many years ago, you would go into a system where, and I did this as a lawsuit. I was certified under rule 13 and I would try cases which would be in front of a commissioner and it would be a hearing around a table, a conference table. And you would not be convicted of a crime. It was a civil matter, but it looked a lot like a criminal matter. And then you were not put in prison, you didn’t have prison, but you had assignment to various institutions that would hold the kid if it was a serious matter, or maybe suspension or supervision, things like that. So it’s a different system.

It looks like criminal law, but

John Simon:

It’s civil. Hasn’t there been a case or two recently that was in the news about parents being held responsible for the shooting cases? Yeah. Didn’t they hold parents?

Tim Cronin:

It’s like the first time that’s happened in one of the shooting cases. And I’m guessing it was a negligent supervision situation where they should have known. And the parents were charged

John Simon:

With- They were charged criminal. Criminally. And were convicted as I recall.

Erich Vieth:

Is this where the parents might’ve had the weapon available in the house? I think it was the parent’s weapon. Maybe

Tim Cronin:

That was- And they had reason to know that there were very concerning things going on with their job, but I think that’s the first time that’s happened.

Erich Vieth:

So the kid committed an intentional act and the parents were charged with negligence for allowing a kid to have the gun. The

Tim Cronin:

Parents were criminally a criminal case. And it may have been like a manslaugh negligent man. I don’t remember what it was. Oh yeah.

Erich Vieth:

Okay.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah. But they were convicted. Wow. Yeah, that’s what they said, I think. But there must have been some damning facts, I’m guessing, about their ignoring what was going on and access to weapons by the child. So would Kevin McAllister’s parents

John Simon:

Get pulled into the lawsuit? I would think so. You know, really all of the intentional … We’re talking about intentional conduct and there can’t be any notice on their part that this very … What’s the word? I mean, it’s pretty clever. The things that he put together, he was eight years old.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

John Simon:

Yeah. I mean, what would the claim be actually that it can’t be just your son did it so you’re responsible? In Missouri. What would the claim

Tim Cronin:

Be? In Missouri, parents are liable for their minor children’s actions for intentional acts purposely causing injury, but it’s capped at $2,000. Did you know that?

John Simon:

Aren’t there more- How old is that law? Statute. Is it from the 1800s or something? It

Tim Cronin:

Might be. I don’t know. But you can be liable for your children’s actions for intentional torts, but it’s capped at two grand, I think, in Missouri. And different states have different laws about it. You’re generally not liable for your child’s simple negligence unless you were independently had negligence

John Simon:

Supervision. Okay. So let’s assume that statute doesn’t apply. What would be the negligent conduct of the parents under these circumstances?

Tim Cronin:

Not under these. I mean, for general negligence supervision, you have to know of their dangerous tendencies and failed to supervise or control them. You would have to know that Kevin likes to set booby traps and injure people. I think that’s right. And you leave him behind at home knowing someone might have true to that.

Erich Vieth:

The key is notice and you got to know. And then the question is, how much do you have to know? What if your kid is just mischievous? I don’t think that’s enough. No. But what if the kid is experimenting with the booby traps in front of the parents for weeks and then it happens and the parents didn’t do anything about it? He didn’t take the- And then left them at home. They blow torch away from the kid. Yeah.

Tim Cronin:

They left their blow torch out maybe. Yeah. Insurance coverage. There will be none. I believe is the answer to that question. Criminal exclusions and insurance policies, denial for intentional acts, voids,

Erich Vieth:

Coverage. We’re talking about parents and kids now.

Tim Cronin:

I think

Erich Vieth:

Both. For the parents for a negligent act?

Tim Cronin:

Then maybe.

Erich Vieth:

Probably.

Tim Cronin:

But for his intentional act, no. So verdict time.

John Simon:

I just would like to read that demand letter. To me, I’m still thinking it’s- Does it end with a plea? Question mark. It’s not going anywhere, the case. What do we say? It’s an interesting conversation, but- Can we have some

Tim Cronin:

Money,

John Simon:

Please?

Erich Vieth:

We had an anecdote last podcast where somebody wrote- No pay. No pay on the demand letter.

John Simon:

That’s what this would be. This would be a no pay go away.

Tim Cronin:

Now, imagine you’re defending Kevin and his parents. What was your opening statement or closing argument?

John Simon:

I would say- Would you just go, “Really? Just wait till you hear this and then sit

Tim Cronin:

Down.” Yeah.

John Simon:

You’re not going to believe this and then sit

Tim Cronin:

Down. You won’t believe we were being sued by these guys. Let’s see.

John Simon:

And then the cross-examination of the plaintiffs, that would be interesting, right?

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

It’d be different to defend him for one thing, like if he just put ice on the steps.

Tim Cronin:

Yeah.

Erich Vieth:

But when you got … Wait, you got 12 things going on here? Right. It gets harder and harder to defend the parents for a kid that is that ingenious, I guess I’ll say. Because he had to be preparing for these, you would think, unless he’s just that smart that goes in the basement and spontaneously thinks of all these

Tim Cronin:

Things. I suppose this is pre-internet. So I don’t know how he came up with all this stuff. It’s 1991. So is he buying books about booby traps? Are his parents buying books about booby traps for him?

Erich Vieth:

Tim, are we here to help you better raise your own

Tim Cronin:

Children? My son has been planning out booby traps all over the house.

Erich Vieth:

So I’m looking at a blurb here. This is from co-counsel. Under Missouri law, comparative fault principles do not apply to intentional torts. Missouri’s pure comparative fault system under Gustafson versus Benda explicitly excludes intentional torts from comparative fault analysis.

Tim Cronin:

So there’s no comparative for intentional acts, but there would be for the parents’ negligence supervision claim? I think so, because

Erich Vieth:

That would be negligence.

Tim Cronin:

Huh. I guess that makes sense. You can’t argue comparative fault if somebody’s committing an intentional tort.

Erich Vieth:

Okay. This has been a quirky episode of The Jury Is Out. I’m Erich Vieth. I’m Tim Cronin.

John Simon:

I’m John Simon. Happy holidays. Happy holidays.

Announcer:

The jury is Out is brought to you by the Simmon Law Firm. At the Simon Law Firm PC, we believe in the power of pooling resources in order to create powerful results. We often lend our trial skills and experience to lawyers around the country to achieve better results for their clients. Our attorneys welcome the opportunity to work with you on your case, offering vast resources, seasoned litigators, and a sterling reputation. You can contact us at 314-241-2929. And if you enjoyed the podcast, feel free to share your thoughts with John, Tim, and Erich at [email protected] and subscribe today because the best lawyers never stop learning.

Continue Reading