Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: OT: But bears watching: University sued over student rape

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    OT: But bears watching: University sued over student rape

    This is OT, but the implications of the lawsuit are right in line with the thoughts we have been batting around here for the past several years concerning the responsibility of an institution to assume full responsibility for the protection of those whom they prohibit from protecting themselves.

    The victim is unidentified, but is much more likely to be 18 than 21, thus ineligible for a CHP. That fact has no bearing on the crime, or on the inability of any student to protect themselves from such attacks on the campus of most colleges in the state.

    TFred


    RAPE VICTIM SUES UMW

    A $10 million lawsuit filed yesterday against the University of Mary Washington says poor security resulted in a student's rape at the school's parking garage.

    The student, who was attacked early on Oct. 3, 2008, is suing the university for negligence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    This is an important thread -- THANKS

    Well, I consider it topical. This implications are important.

    A court repeatedly denies immunity to Steger for alleged security neglience at VT, and now we have this.

    The news article helpfully refreshes everyone's memory of Judy Hample's "Man with a gun" stunt, and provides the PDF of the official complaint.

    The document gets pretty interesting around Paragraph 143 on page 20. It declares that students "are not in the position" to defend themselves. I think it could have been written better, but it's an opening.

    Paragraph 147 is hilarious. Gee, you think?

  3. #3
    Regular Member 230therapy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    People's County of Fairfax
    Posts
    276
    This is exactly what we need to change the behavior of organizations who deny people their rights.

    If EVERY person victimized in a gun free zone did so, these organizations would change their tune very, very quickly.
    Does anyone here actually believe that the Founders were sitting around in John Adams' tavern UNARMED because they believed a bar should be a gun free zone?

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Wow. I thought that this was kind of quick until I realized the original article was dated 8 months ago. What a bargain basement discounted amount for settling a lawsuit like that. [shaking head]

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by drdan01 View Post
    Wow. I thought that this was kind of quick until I realized the original article was dated 8 months ago. What a bargain basement discounted amount for settling a lawsuit like that. [shaking head]
    Seems to me that $7,500 is not a bad take when you consider that the judge in the civil suit had ruled back in March that UMW bore no responsibility or liability for the rape.

    Yeah, that sux. But considering the state has once again been absolved of responsibility towards any specific individual, getting any money (might be enough to pay the attorney who handled the case?) seems like a bonus.

    Not a win. Just a bonus.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I don't have anything to say about that.

    (My youngest son recently admonished me, saying,
    "Dad, haven't you heard the old saying that if you
    don't have something good to say, you shouldn't
    say anything at all?")
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I don't have anything to say about that.

    (My youngest son recently admonished me, saying,
    "Dad, haven't you heard the old saying that if you
    don't have something good to say, you shouldn't
    say anything at all?")
    That isn't really true though. In fact, it's bad luck. Just yesterday I said it was GOOD not having Novacop around.

  9. #9
    Regular Member coondog22554's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Stafford, VA, ,
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Seems to me that $7,500 is not a bad take when you consider that the judge in the civil suit had ruled back in March that UMW bore no responsibility or liability for the rape.

    stay safe.
    There is a quote in todays Free Lance Star that bears repeating... "Assistant Attorney General John Gilbody said at a hearing in March that UMW doesn’t have a duty to protect students unless it has knowledge of a specific imminent threat.”

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2.../1312247256fls

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by coondog22554 View Post
    There is a quote in todays Free Lance Star that bears repeating... "Assistant Attorney General John Gilbody said at a hearing in March that UMW doesn’t have a duty to protect students unless it has knowledge of a specific imminent threat.”

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2.../1312247256fls
    Apparently Assistant Attorney General John Gilbody has not bothered to read the five (5) - yes, count them FIVE - SCOTUS decisions that say otherwise. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that those five cases have been discussed enough that there is no crying need for citations to them amongst this crowd.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Well, not really

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Apparently Assistant Attorney General John Gilbody has not bothered to read the five (5) - yes, count them FIVE - SCOTUS decisions that say otherwise. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that those five cases have been discussed enough that there is no crying need for citations to them amongst this crowd.

    stay safe.
    Maybe you should have cited.

    It seems Gilbody was thinking of Virginia case law, such as Thompson v. Skate America, Inc., 261 Va. 121, 130, 540 S.E.2d 123, 128 (2001).

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Maybe you should have cited.

    It seems Gilbody was thinking of Virginia case law, such as Thompson v. Skate America, Inc., 261 Va. 121, 130, 540 S.E.2d 123, 128 (2001).
    Sorry, but Thompson involves a business and a known troublemaker. Skate America could not have argued soverign immunity if they wanted to (OK, they could but would have been laughed out of court). UMW is a state agency and the UMW Police are a police department. SCOTUS' long history of decisions on police protection owed to any specific individual seems a much better fit. Do you know anything that points you towards Thompson or are we just engaging in pilpul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Sorry, but Thompson involves a business and a known troublemaker. Skate America could not have argued soverign immunity if they wanted to (OK, they could but would have been laughed out of court). UMW is a state agency and the UMW Police are a police department. SCOTUS' long history of decisions on police protection owed to any specific individual seems a much better fit. Do you know anything that points you towards Thompson or are we just engaging in pilpul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul

    stay safe.
    The AG's office is likely thinking of Virginia's Tort claims Act, which waives immunity in exchange for certain conditions. including a cap on damages.

    See § 2.2-514. Compromise and settlement of disputes.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    The AG's office is likely thinking of Virginia's Tort claims Act, which waives immunity in exchange for certain conditions. including a cap on damages.

    See § 2.2-514. Compromise and settlement of disputes.
    Seeing as how the original suit sought $10MILLION, I doubt that the plantiff's attorney was thinking of the Tort Claims Act, and therefore doubt that the AAG was either. As you mention, the Tort Claims Act limits the amount of recovery:
    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...cod+8.01-195.3

    ... However, except to the extent that a transportation district contracts to do so pursuant to § 15.2-4518, neither the Commonwealth nor any transportation district shall be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages. The amount recoverable by any claimant shall not exceed (i) $25,000 for causes of action accruing prior to July 1, 1988, $75,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1988, or $100,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1993, or (ii) the maximum limits of any liability policy maintained to insure against such negligence or other tort, if such policy is in force at the time of the act or omission complained of, whichever is greater, exclusive of interest and costs. ....
    I propose that we cease kicking this around and agree that the young lady was assaulted twice - once by a party unknown and once by the legal system.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •