tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post4977604039916320415..comments2024-03-28T23:48:08.527-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Supreme Court overturns Kroger caseKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-82230389395883319432012-07-03T20:32:49.134-05:002012-07-03T20:32:49.134-05:00It does seem like a bit of a stretch how the court...It does seem like a bit of a stretch how the court minimized those prior instances as "purse snatching."<br /><br />"Purse snatching" is strong-arm robbery under the criminal statutes. It's a violent crime no matter how much the term gets lawyered. <br /><br />I'm hoping a defense lawyer will use the Court's own logic in a criminal appeal one day. "No, Justice Dickinson, my client didn't commit robbery. He merely used force to take the victim's property from the victim's person, with the intent to permanently deprive the victim of ownership of the property. Ya know, it was "non-violent purse snatching," like in the Kroger case."Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-68434538773662054172012-07-03T09:32:45.249-05:002012-07-03T09:32:45.249-05:00Atmosphere of *violence* is right, Curt - not &quo...Atmosphere of *violence* is right, Curt - not "atmosphere of crime."<br /><br />The plurality (I shouldn't have said "majority") set a bright line: incidents of purse-snatching do not amount to "violence" for purposes of premises liability.<br /><br />I'm curious why two justices sat this out - I have come to suspect that on 5-4 issues where the justices in the middle are wobbly, one on each side agrees to sit out to make the decision a plurality, i.e. non-precedential.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-8076163748229663412012-07-02T18:05:45.795-05:002012-07-02T18:05:45.795-05:00Anderson, I agree with your analysis.
Apparently ...Anderson, I agree with your analysis.<br /><br />Apparently the fact that Kroger had FOUR strong-arm robberies in its parking lot in the preceding three years was not enough to make management aware of an atmosphere of violence.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-13962111003993732932012-07-02T17:56:42.108-05:002012-07-02T17:56:42.108-05:001:38, apparently you missed the point of my questi...1:38, apparently you missed the point of my question, so let me ask it another way. Do you contend that the criminal--and only the criminal--should be held accountable for the assault?<br /><br /><br />"The criminal should be dropped from the lawsuit and come back to court and testify for the plaintiff...oh wait, that sounds a little familiar."<br /><br />Perhaps it sounds familiar because it is essentially what prosecutors do in countless criminal cases every day.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-84217791012733563902012-07-02T14:11:35.198-05:002012-07-02T14:11:35.198-05:00I looked back at the op today.
The majority cou...I looked back at the op today. <br /><br />The majority could have usefully explained why the expert ops weren't enough for a jury to find for the plaintiff. My takeaway is that no legal duty accrued absent an "atmosphere of violence," and without that, expert opinions claiming such a need for add'l security were unfounded as a matter of law.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-56004937794941757782012-07-02T13:38:49.703-05:002012-07-02T13:38:49.703-05:00"..opining that the criminal is the one who s..."..opining that the criminal is the one who should be held accountable.."<br /><br />wait, what? You mean I was horrible enough to say that outloud--the **criminal** should be accountable. Oh my gosh, what is this world coming to?! The criminal should be dropped from the lawsuit and come back to court and testify for the plaintiff...oh wait, that sounds a little familiar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-43794986743188834412012-07-02T11:31:49.475-05:002012-07-02T11:31:49.475-05:008:55, by opining that the criminal is the one who ...8:55, by opining that the criminal is the one who should be held accountable, do you suggest that a property owner never has a duty to provide reasonable security? Should a property owner never be subject to suit for failing to have reasonable security?Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-27025368715851645552012-07-02T08:55:27.014-05:002012-07-02T08:55:27.014-05:00"This is about the lady who got her face bash..."This is about the lady who got her face bashed in by some thugs because Kroger would not follow the security recommendations it was given"<br /><br />I call bullshit. The lady should have sued the ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO HURT HER. The ONLY reason Kroger or any other business was involved was because the ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO HURT HER didn't have enough money.<br /><br />The justice system must have a defendant and a plaintiff. There must be lawyers to represent both sides. There is no problem in that at all. No sacks of money need to be exchanged with the judges (pardon, couldn’t help that reference). <br /><br />The problems occur when the ONE WHO COMMITS THE ACTUAL CRIME doesn’t have enough MONEY and the plaintiff decides that SOMEONE WITH MONEY must be held ‘accountable’. It twists the justice system from one of justice and restoration to a lottery where the plaintiff and lawyer get millions and the rest of society pays the price (the bad guy is still out there and can harm again).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-20185798722001995402012-07-01T11:21:59.824-05:002012-07-01T11:21:59.824-05:00Shadowbrain, what part of I don't handle those...Shadowbrain, what part of I don't handle those kind of cases is difficult to understand? This isn't about me or the evil lawyers. This is about the lady who got her face bashed in by some thugs because Kroger would not follow the security recommendations it was given. <br /><br />I was being just polite when I speculated that your idiotic comments were due to alcohol consumption. It seemed nicer to blame your ignorance on booze than to come right out and call you dim.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-25061352483338208522012-07-01T10:41:27.368-05:002012-07-01T10:41:27.368-05:00Mr. Crowley, Esq., An 'ambulance chaser' i...Mr. Crowley, Esq., An 'ambulance chaser' is an attorney who 'rushes in' (or shouts his availability) at the first sign of another's misery or misfortune in order to put a little folding money in his pocket. That defines you and most attorneys to a 'T'. Some are just more aggressive at it. Thanks for the admonition, but I only enjoy a chilled beverage occasionally after a hard day's work. It's rare though. <br /><br />You really seem to have a deep personal problem with anyone who owns property and has been successful, financially. Why else would you constantly refer to them as pieces of shit?Shadowfaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-66809018274888374122012-06-30T20:36:10.962-05:002012-06-30T20:36:10.962-05:00Shadowfax, you're an idiot. Everyone knows tha...Shadowfax, you're an idiot. Everyone knows that you don't half read KF's posts, and you NEVER read the links that are contained in the posts. You just comment half-cocked and look like a fool. <br /><br />Had you bothered to read the opinion that KF linked, you would know how I know what Kroger did. Since you won't take time to read and figure it out yourself, I'll go ahead and tell you how I know. Kroger testified about it in the trial. That testimony is contained in the linked opinion. <br /><br />Btw, I don't handle those kinds of cases, so I personally don't care if the lawyers get paid. I do, however, shop. I also bleed if I get shot or cut. That's why I care about irresponsible property owners. <br /><br />Now go have another drink and wallow in your ignorance. Come back when you're sober.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-5970637425082491652012-06-30T16:29:41.754-05:002012-06-30T16:29:41.754-05:00Crowley; How is it you're privy to what Kroger...Crowley; How is it you're privy to what Kroger Management in Memphis does or doesn't do? You ambulance chasers are a dime a dozen and don't give one shit about patron safety at shopping venues, only how the lack of it might pad your greedy-ass pocket book.Shadowfaxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-10792411259185315182012-06-30T09:25:36.108-05:002012-06-30T09:25:36.108-05:005:17, my response was not meant for you. I was typ...5:17, my response was not meant for you. I was typing when you posted your comment, and didn't see it until afterward. <br /><br />To answer your question, no I didn't sue the PoS property owner and management after that incident. I chose to use "extrajudicial" means to hold them accountable.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-16751890782473208522012-06-30T09:16:51.969-05:002012-06-30T09:16:51.969-05:00Bill:
For me, the turning point as to business ow...Bill:<br /><br />For me, the turning point as to business owner responsibility is when the owner is notified he has a security problem. <br /><br />When a business has a security survey done, it will pinpoint any problems/risks and make recommendations on how to remedy those issues. If the business follows the recommendations, it would be difficult to say the business owner was negligent in the event of a criminal assault. <br /><br />On the other hand, if the security survey notifies the business of security issues and how to fix them, and the business does nothing, then they need to get hammered. <br /><br />Kroger was notified that they had a problem. Kroger did nothing. And they are not held accountable.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-39097519461951705332012-06-30T07:51:35.208-05:002012-06-30T07:51:35.208-05:00Why the references to Madison? This all took place...Why the references to Madison? This all took place in Stokestown.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-32367697235050332862012-06-29T22:17:55.837-05:002012-06-29T22:17:55.837-05:00everyone who makes more than $12 an hour thinks he...everyone who makes more than $12 an hour thinks he's one of the good ole boys, votes for Phil Bryant, and curses the plaintiff's lawyers. like lambs being lead to the slaughter.<br /><br />Everyone's heard about the 1% at the top. Well the 1% at the bottom are the people to whom this kind of shit happens. If you ever end up with that minority, you'll find out exactly far away you are from the 1% who matter anymore. Until then, keep voting away your rights and supporting those who couldn't give a rip about you or your family.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-4775193046606458102012-06-29T22:14:34.017-05:002012-06-29T22:14:34.017-05:00Curt - 5:17 here. When I said "serious quest...Curt - 5:17 here. When I said "serious question" I meant "serious question". Your reply immediately below ignores the question completely.<br /><br />Did you sue the property owner after your incident, or not? Do you hold the landlord liable for the emotional trauma, etc, you suffered on his/her premises?<br /><br />If you can't answer a "yes or no" question with a "yes" or "no" - well, that's an answer of a different kind, and it affects your credibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-17617355738398551832012-06-29T21:40:56.869-05:002012-06-29T21:40:56.869-05:00Curt,
I see that your DJT blog stagnated about th...Curt,<br /><br />I see that your DJT blog stagnated about three months ago.<br /><br />One can only assume that West Capitol Street now must<br />be a crime free Utopian Paradise.<br /><br />What's the latest in your Standard Life Hood?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-46067980906992805582012-06-29T20:39:23.523-05:002012-06-29T20:39:23.523-05:00Here's hoping none of the posters here have an...Here's hoping none of the posters here have anything hurt them when they shop at Kroger/WalMart/etc. Cause if you are maimed or injured, take heart knowing that the MS Supremes will overturn the verdict for big business.<br /><br />Mississippi - no justice here for the little people anymoreroughnecknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-43418548420375535502012-06-29T18:02:36.900-05:002012-06-29T18:02:36.900-05:00Curt, how does a property owner know when he's...Curt, how does a property owner know when he's taken sufficient steps to secure his property? By definition, it's secure if no incidents occur, right? How will this case - or maybe I should say how would have this case - helped establish a measurable point of security for future cases to use as precedent? It seems to this non-attorney that reasonable security is a moving target, sort of like the "I'll recognize it when I see it" definition of pornography. If a property owner has never had an incident in his parking lot he is reasonable to assume his security is sufficient right up to the point where some thug smacks a woman in the head and grabs her purse. How can he be held liable for something he couldn't have possibly predicted from past experience?billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04212014163842522498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-27762023728661891422012-06-29T17:20:32.471-05:002012-06-29T17:20:32.471-05:00As I said before, you get up close and personal wi...As I said before, you get up close and personal with one of these animals because some PoS property owner is irresponsible and doesn't secure his property, and I will be more than happy to listen to your AmJur lecture on negligent security. <br /><br />Until then, I personally don't give a shit how many times you repeat the insurance defense summary judgment talking points.Curt Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704349341530572678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-69626598535868526092012-06-29T17:17:43.938-05:002012-06-29T17:17:43.938-05:00Curt - serious question here: after you caught the...Curt - serious question here: after you caught the thug rifling through your file cabinets at work and marched him at gunpoint to the cops, did you then sue your landlord (you know, the property owner) for failing to provide adequate security for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-10883467165372713332012-06-29T17:02:44.284-05:002012-06-29T17:02:44.284-05:00What a joke. I'll tell you what, 4:15 pm, sin...What a joke. I'll tell you what, 4:15 pm, since you're just so concerned about everyone's safety, you can pay for armed guards to escort us all around because that's of course your number one concern-our safety. Right. <br /><br />A property owner is NOT an insurer of someone's safety. They are to exercise reasonable safety from forseable things. Just because you own a store doesn't mean you have a magic ball, know every criminal out there, and should have men with guns pointed all over the place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-62101631162082470192012-06-29T16:54:19.777-05:002012-06-29T16:54:19.777-05:00"It is not a property owner's responsibil..."It is not a property owner's responsibility to rid the immediate area of crime unless the property owner is causing the crime (i.e., bar, whore house, crack house, etc). A grocery store does not increase crime, and only attracts the criminal element to the same extent anything of value would."<br /><br />Look for our Supreme Court to enter a holding to this effect soon if the plaintiff's bar/bench keeps pushing b.s. premises cases up to them. Especially when the verdict amounts to little more than a declaration of class warfare/entitlement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-2544113527058339362012-06-29T16:48:16.993-05:002012-06-29T16:48:16.993-05:00Sorry, 4:05 pm, but this tired old game of well-so...Sorry, 4:05 pm, but this tired old game of well-somebody-got-to-pay just doesn't work. <br /><br />The ONLY reason this case was brought was money. It wasn't justice (now, who were the two people voluntarily dismissed--oh, that's right, the TWO PEOPLE WHO DID THE HARM IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.) <br /><br />And how CONVENIENT that certain police officers testify over and over again---oh, well, if, uh, you'd just hire us when we're not working, then we'd make extra money, oops, I mean them there'd never be any crime. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Forget the very obvious problem with that type of thinking, and lets just look around---armed police patrol our streets so obviously there's absolutely no crime anywhere on our streets because they are armed. Doesn’t that logic work? I will never understand how the good cops actually stomach this type of crap from those guys. And by the way, 4:05 pm, the cops arrest the bad guy, he goes to jail, and somehow mysteriously ends up back on the street. How many times have we seen—and his rap sheet has x number of past crimes. So, where’s Ogden then, why aren’t any of these ‘for the people’ putting those little pissants back in jail. How come old One Call isn’t putting them back in jail. I guess there's no big payday for that kind of work. It didn't happen on somebody's parking lot.<br /><br />Oh, but its Kroger’s fault that some jackoff drove up and committed a crime. Please. The very idea that you're going to sue yourself into some ‘fake safety’ is absurd and only benefits the lawyer who is screaming----but so-n-so got hurt and we have to sue, that is we have to find someone to sue who has money so we both can get some cash. <br /><br />So I guess every person must have an armed guard with them at all times, every errand, every place they go, cause otherwise, there's an ‘atmosphere of violence’ and some 3rd party may hurt you and you may not be close enough to a business that has insurance. The only people who benefit from this type of crap are the lawyers filing the lawsuit.<br /><br />People need to grow the hell up. <br /><br />Apologies to KF, but stuff like this pisses me off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com