• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: But bears watching: University sued over student rape

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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?
 

230therapy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
279
Location
People's County of Fairfax
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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?")
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.:banghead:
 

coondog22554

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
62
Location
Stafford, VA, ,
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/2011/082011/08012011/1312247256fls
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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/2011/082011/08012011/1312247256fls

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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Well, not really

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).
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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/legp504.exe?000+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.
 
Top