After all the dead are buried, and the newspaper articles end, who will the victims be able to sue? Can the sponsor (John Hancock Insurance) be found liable? I don’t mean any disrespect, but it seems like a host of potential firms could have liability in this…or are lawsuits prohibited in this sort of thing?
The victims were on public sidewalks, were they not? Who would be liable, and why? Is somebody to be sued for responsibility in every crime committed by other people in public places?
The bombers.
What is your reasoning behind your assertion?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see lawsuits, though I agree with the others posting that there doesn’t seem to be any basis for them. Somebody’s going to assert that the city didn’t do the standard frequency of explosive sweeps, or that the event organizers didn’t spend enough on security, or some other likely frivolous “negligence.” Remember, with lawsuits you generally don’t need to sue the person(s) with primary responsibility. You just have to find someone with deep pockets where you can convince a jury that this someone has SOME responsibility, something greater than none. Cha-ching.
Well, there is the RI nightclub fire (The Filling station").The fire was caused by a pyrotechinic display-which ignited illegally installed plastic foam on the walls. Some of the paries that were sued (and paid) included JBL (loudspeakers), the Town of West Warwick, Budweiser beer and its distributors, a local radio station, etc.
None of these parties had any direct responsibility for the fire;however, all paid substantial sums in the subsequent civil lawsuit.
But how does any of the fire matter have anything at all to do with the bombing? Apples and oranges.
Chechnya, the country that produced these boys will have to pay big time.
None of the businesses in the area in any way contributed to the deaths and injuries from the bombing. This was an intentional act unlike the Station fire, if they can’t get the money from the bombers it’s really hard to find a connection to any business in the area. So maybe they sue the city of Boston, but state laws may prevent that somehow. Someone may try to sue the pressure cooker company or something like that, but given the circumstances it’s doubtful they can prevail, and it doesn’t even sound like something they would settle. But you can sue anyone for anything, and sometimes even the absurd cases get to the point of going after deep pockets.
The general notion of ‘deep pockets’ is one of the things that has disconnected civil justice from reality. Those who are “liable” are the two bombers and anyone who influenced them. However I have no doubt that the company that poured the sidewalks will end up paying someone, somewhere, based on a flimsy notion that the concrete mix contributed to the effectiveness of the blasts and thus makes them (translation: their substantial general business liability insurer) “liable.”
Of it the garbage cans were stronger more of the blast would have been directed upwards instead of at people’s legs.
My WAG, the starting point is going to be to go after any insurance companies that covered the brothers. If the dead brother had life insurance (doubtful), they’ll probably start there. But if they have homeowners or renters or any kind of umbrella policy, not that a million or half million is even going to begin to cover anything, but that’s my guess. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if their car insurance company gets sucked into a lawsuit.
How about the black powder mfg. that sold the explosive to the brothers? Ball bearings, nail mfgs., etc.?
I also wonder of the businesses adjacent to the bombs could be sued-that was where the blasts came from. And John Hancock-they were assing out cups of water (to the runners) in the vicinity.
IANAL, but wouldn’t a lawsuit basically contend that a defendent was negligent in not preventing the placement and detonation of the bomb(s) that injured/killed plaintiff? Which means that they could/should have done more to prevent it? Given that a significant chunk of local, state and national (ours and others) resources are devoted specifically to preventing this type of occurence, can a plaintiff really claim that some private company/individual could have been expected to more than that? Or is it simply that when something bad happens “somebody’s got to pay”.
Not for liability, but I’ve been wondering if the 29 year old’s family will sue the hospital that told them she was alive when she wasn’t.
Sad to say, but I’ll bet certain backpack and pressure cooker manufacturers have already alerted their legal departments.
IANAL (and never regretted it).
I think some of the supposedly frivolous and wide-ranging lawsuits one read about, as well as all the up-coming lawsuits we are speculating about here, have arguments based on Strict Liability – that is, the general idea that some party might be liable just for being present at the scene (in some sense).
If a visitor stubs his toe while on your property, you might be held liable, just because it’s your property. That’s Strict Liability. A lot of the arguments in the nightclub fire case (against the manufacturers of the loudspeakers??? :smack: ) might well be argued on some kind of strict liability basis. The arguments are often far-out and like :rolleyes: – and they often end up never being tested in court, as the defendants decide it’s cheaper to settle out of court. Specious lawsuits get a lot of traction that way.