TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

Businesses carry liability insurance and they want a cut.

Ding ding!

jmra wrote: If the courts have stated that a police officer is not required to intervene or act to protect an individual then there is absolutely no way that a restaurant can be expected to.

That isn't what the courts rules because that wasn't the question in front of the court. The case was about weather the cops can be sued for not protecting someone.

Absolutely no merit to the lawsuit. In fact if it were my decision, I would counter sue the estate for damages as she used my establishment to engage in what she knew would be a volatile confrontation which resulted in a financial loss on the part of my establishment, especially given the fact that she knew he had a long history of violence ("Police records dating back nearly 20 years painted a picture of Kevin Allen, married at least three times, as a violent man with a history of threatening wives and others").
This is nothing more than a jack leg attorney and a money grabbing relative trying to get $20k or $30K out of CB to avoid the expense of a trial.

You don't even know what if any case they have but you are already sure it's bunk, would turn around and blame the victim and sue her estate. OOOOKay

I would love to be on a jury for a case like this and rule the plaintiff covers the defendants legal bills plus a million dollars for pain and suffering.

bizarrenormality wrote:I would love to be on a jury for a case like this and rule the plaintiff covers the defendants legal bills plus a million dollars for pain and suffering.

Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

EEllis wrote:Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

Please explain. I don't do drugs.

bizarrenormality wrote:

EEllis wrote:Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

Please explain. I don't do drugs.

Hang on, let me get my popcorn. Don't want to miss this one.

jmra wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

EEllis wrote:Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

Please explain. I don't do drugs.

Hang on, let me get my popcorn. Don't want to miss this one.

If ya leave the butter off, it's fairly low cal...

bizarrenormality wrote:I would love to be on a jury for a case like this and rule the plaintiff covers the defendants legal bills plus a million dollars for pain and suffering.

While you're at it, don't forget 'loss of consortium'. (can we say 'consortium' here?)

bizarrenormality wrote:

EEllis wrote:Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

Please explain. I don't do drugs.

That would be the only way you could be on the jury since you have decided the case without even knowing the facts. You would have to perjure yourself to be allowed on the jury then violate your oath you take while you're on the jury but hey, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

EEllis wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

EEllis wrote:Well hey you would only have to perjure yourself and violate the oath you take but, Yeah! What fun.

Please explain. I don't do drugs.

That would be the only way you could be on the jury since you have decided the case without even knowing the facts. You would have to perjure yourself to be allowed on the jury then violate your oath you take while you're on the jury but hey, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

Those rich corporations can afford it and besides, we all have the right to file frivolous lawsuits.

Anygunanywhere

EEllis wrote:, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

So your thought here is.. what.. That the grieving relatives are doing this for justice against a company that somehow is responsible for that woman without authorization turning a restaurant into a battle zone?

If anything Cracker Barrel should be suing the woman's estate for her depraved indifference in knowingly and intentionally cause a v known violent man to come into the business, where she intended to set in motion an event that would likely cause a violent reaction from the husband.

IOW, I'll match your support of one Frivolous lawsuit with that of another

EEllis wrote:That would be the only way you could be on the jury since you have decided the case without even knowing the facts. You would have to perjure yourself to be allowed on the jury then violate your oath you take while you're on the jury but hey, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

I'd like to ask, and I am sincere in my query; in your opinion if someone knows about jury nullification does that exclude them from jury duty? Would they be committing perjury to become a juror?

For instance, someone believe the "war on drugs" is illegitimate yet gets summoned for jury duty on a case of drug possession or trafficking. He knows going in he is going to vote not guilty because he believes the drug laws are immoral.

Or another instance, someone in 1855 believes the fugitive slave act is illegitimate yet gets summoned for jury duty on a case of a runaway slave. He knows going in he is going to vote not guilty because he believes slavery is immoral.

Are either of those acceptable?

To keep on topic, if someone holds a belief that frivolous lawsuits are immoral - can they not exercise the same judgment on the jury?

And for the record, I have not been asked to be on a jury since 1993 when I questioned a DA and District Judge during the jury selection process over a possible sentence of life in prison for a man who jumped bail. I was dismissed.

E.Marquez wrote:

EEllis wrote:, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

So your thought here is.. what.. That the grieving relatives are doing this for justice against a company that somehow is responsible for that woman without authorization turning a restaurant into a battle zone?

If anything Cracker Barrel should be suing the woman's estate for her depraved indifference in knowingly and intentionally cause a v known violent man to come into the business, where she intended to set in motion an event that would likely cause a violent reaction from the husband.

IOW, I'll match your support of one Frivolous lawsuit with that of another

I'm just saying deciding a lawsuit that one doesn't even know the basis for against a relative and already deciding to penalize that relative for a million bucks before one can honestly know the worth of that suite seems a bit much. YMMV.

Jaguar wrote:

EEllis wrote:That would be the only way you could be on the jury since you have decided the case without even knowing the facts. You would have to perjure yourself to be allowed on the jury then violate your oath you take while you're on the jury but hey, you'ld give those grieving relatives what for!!!

I'd like to ask, and I am sincere in my query; in your opinion if someone knows about jury nullification does that exclude them from jury duty? Would they be committing perjury to become a juror?

For instance, someone believe the "war on drugs" is illegitimate yet gets summoned for jury duty on a case of drug possession or trafficking. He knows going in he is going to vote not guilty because he believes the drug laws are immoral.

Or another instance, someone in 1855 believes the fugitive slave act is illegitimate yet gets summoned for jury duty on a case of a runaway slave. He knows going in he is going to vote not guilty because he believes slavery is immoral.

Are either of those acceptable?

To keep on topic, if someone holds a belief that frivolous lawsuits are immoral - can they not exercise the same judgment on the jury?

And for the record, I have not been asked to be on a jury since 1993 when I questioned a DA and District Judge during the jury selection process over a possible sentence of life in prison for a man who jumped bail. I was dismissed.

Jury Nullification?

Maybe the people with knowledge beyond what's public can share the information instead of insulting members who express an opinion base on the facts known to that member.