[QUOTE=JohnT]
Since we’re not talking about an accidental cigarette fire here, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that setting off exploding flash pots within a building could start a fire unless done properly.
Blame the owners all you want, I just don’t see the case where the pyrotechnic superviser gets a pass.
[/QUOTE]
Me neither. Remember? I’m the one who said that I don’t see why it all has to be pinned on one single person.
The issue, and why the owners were convicted, was failure to follow fire safety standards. I understand this to mean they should have used better, flame-retardant soundproofing, by law. Obviously, not every place is required to use this, else there would be no market for the flammable soundproofing. I’m surprised a public venue would not be regularly inspected by a fire marshall, and such a danger pointed out.
What about this information from the borthers’ defense attorney, from the second link. Looks like the foam manufacturer and the fire inspector had small parts in this too. And it looks like the brothers were unaware of the foam’s dangerousness. If they had no knowledge, because the manufacturer withheld safety info, and the fire inspector never said anything about the foam when he saw it, then can they really be held criminally negligent?
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Because it’s not reasonable to assume that accidentally dropping a cigarette will cause a fire that will kill a hundred people. Honestly, this is the absolute basics of tort law. Shouldn’t most people know something about this? Besides, isn’t that sort of obvious? The line is, admittedly, sometimes blurry, but people aren’t legally held legally accountable if they engage in an action that can’t be reasonably foreseen to have a negative result.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I’m not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser – it’s a question of fact for the jury.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Imagine that I set an extremely delicate vase on the very edge of a shelf that’s a tad unstable. It’s a beautiful vase and a priceless Ming Dynasty antique. It’s painted with a lovely crane motif. Now, imagine if Anaamika walked by and carelessly bumped into the shelf. The vase falls and breaks. Is Anaamika entirely to blame? Of course not. I could foresee, in placing my Ming vase on a precarious shelf, that it is highly likely that some minor accident would eventually knock it off. Sure, Anaamika shouldn’t walk around bumping into things - and she might share some of the responsibility, particularly if she was being careless in some way. But just because hers is the proximate cause of the vase’s destruction doesn’t mean it’s rational to blame the entire event on her.
[/QUOTE]
Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Equally, if someone builds a club in such a way that it’s particularly vulnerable to fire, invites crowds of people, and has musicians perform (and wasn’t he aware of the band’s intention to use pyrotechnics? I have to imagine that bands usually check with the manager of the venue before doing things like that.), isn’t he partially responsible if an accident happens? A certain amount of care is expected in someone who makes a facility open to the public. Not covering the walls with extremely flammable material strikes me as a pretty reasonable standard.
[/QUOTE]
this is joint tortfeasors, and you’re right. both parties share liabilty.
**Here’s the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. ** In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.
[QUOTE=whole bean]
Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I’m not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser – it’s a question of fact for the jury.
Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.
this is joint tortfeasors, and you’re right. both parties share liabilty.
**Here’s the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. ** In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.
[/QUOTE]
This would be why I’m not a lawyer. Also, I haven’t gone to law school, nor have I passed the bar.
My point remains, though - it’s nonsense to pretend that only the person who lit the fire would be held responsible. (Though nyctea’s point suggesting that perhaps the owners believed that they had used flame-retardant foam is obviously relevant.)
[QUOTE=whole bean]
Actually, basic torts law is: duty, breach, causation, damages. Forseeability is an element of both duty (to whom do you owe a duty) and causation (were the damages foreseeable). I’m not so sure you win in your defense of the cigarette tosser – it’s a question of fact for the jury.
Your example relates to comparative fault, not causation. Anamikka is at fault, but you (the plaintiff) were also at fault; depending on the jurisdiction and the percentage of fault the jury assigns to each of you, her liability for the damages to the vase is either lessened or erased.
this is joint tortfeasors, and you’re right. both parties share liabilty.
**Here’s the big problem, the OP is about a criminal case, not a wrongful death suit. None of this forseeability/causation/torts talk is relevant. ** In criminal cases, people are convicted of crimes, not held liable for torts. You can have joint defendants, accomplice libaility, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Using the Anamikka scenario, in a state where the rule was contributory negligence, she might not be liable if it is found that you were negligent in leaving the vase in an unsafe place.
whole bean, can’t you have negligent homicide*, in that kind of scenario, duty, forseeability might come into play. A reading of the article doesn’t seem to mention that however.
Does anyone know if a civil suit has been filed? I’d be curious to see the pleadings and who the named parties are.
Cases like these make me glad I am not a judge.
Okay, I’ll try another analogy.
Citing a Wikipedia article about the Cocoanut Grove, Cocoanut Grove fire - Wikipedia
the infamous fire started as follows:
Technically, the busboy started the fire and his actions were nowhere nearly as dramatic as a pyrotechnic display. However, it seems that both the Cocoanut Grove and the Station were firetraps waiting for a disaster to occur and the person that sets off the fire should not be the one to get 100% of the blame.
I think that the Cocoanut Grove case might be different in that there, the place was covered in flammable materials and to make matters worse, most of the exits had been welded shut to prevent people from sneaking out and the only exit was a revolving door.
There is a huge difference in a waiter lighting a match, which the 1940s would have been common in a nightclub since smoking was accepted and a guy setting off a pyrotechnics show in a relatively small wooden structure.
Look at this way, is it reasonable for you in a 1940s nightclub to light a match? Sure it is.
Is it reasonable for you as a pyrotechnics guy to set them off in an enclosed wooden structure? Not really?
The fact is, RI is a small, insular place. All the judges and lawyers know eachother. It puzzles me why such short sentences were involved-a good prosecutor should have been able to nail them! the fact is, the State AG is upo for re-election-and the puppet masters who run the state don’t want the dirty linen aired 9like why RI granfathers clubs without sprinkler systems)!
In the halls of justice, the only justic is in the halls. (attributed to the late Lenny Bruce).
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
whole bean, can’t you have negligent homicide*, in that kind of scenario, duty, forseeability might come into play. A reading of the article doesn’t seem to mention that however.
[/QUOTE]
it’s my understanding that a finding of criminal negligence requires a showing of a gross deviation from standards of reasonable care – i.e. it’s a tougher showing than negligence in a tort – and a different burden of proof. I was simplying saying that the references to tort law were misplaced.
Excalibre looked like he setting up a Palsgraf type case with his vase before he veered into comparitive fault (contributory negligence) territory
It’s probably best that we wait until the 29th (the day of the official hearing) to see how this plays out. Now Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch (who once said “fuck you” to my current girlfriend when she stood him up for a date) is saying that he did not authorize this deal and he has either lost control of his office or is furiously backpedaling since he had told the relatives of the victims that he would not be accepting a plea deal. Apparently he’s talking big about making a big stink in court when the official court date comes around.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
I’m surprised a public venue would not be regularly inspected by a fire marshall, and such a danger pointed out.
[/QUOTE]
It was and that’s another issue. There’s quite a bit of venom around here wondering why the fire inspectors were not brought up on charges for letting sub-standard insulation pass muster as well.
Caffeine.addict
Heck, I’ll grant you there is a huge difference between lighting a match and setting off a pyrotechnic display. (I thought I made that clear in my previous post). Also I know the Cocoanut Grove was the pinnacle of fire violations. The exit signs were obscured, exit doors that weren’t welded shut opened inward and not outwards. I think I’ll cite the Wikipedia article again:
Out of the 30 or posts so far, and in spite of all the links I’ve read, perhaps **ralph124c ** has found the answer (but it won’t be on the 6:00 o’clock news)
That is quite relevant to the outcome of the Cocoanut Grove fire. From the same Wikipedia article:
Emphasis mine.
Yes, I’d say ralph124c’s posting is the best explanation of the lenient sentences.
To paraphrase the words of the great American philosopher, Yogi Berra , it seems as if history has repeted itself all over again.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The fact is, RI is a small, insular place. All the judges and lawyers know eachother. It puzzles me why such short sentences were involved-a good prosecutor should have been able to nail them! the fact is, the State AG is upo for re-election-and the puppet masters who run the state don’t want the dirty linen aired 9like why RI granfathers clubs without sprinkler systems)!
In the halls of justice, the only justic is in the halls. (attributed to the late Lenny Bruce).
[/QUOTE]
Rhode Island … where the politicians love us so much they even make our liscense plates for us.
Eutychus
I took so darned long writing my posting, yours appeared in the meantime.
You too raise some very interesting points. It sure seems just about everybody in Rhode Island public office or employment would not want the details of this fire to come to light.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
Eutychus
I took so darned long writing my posting, yours appeared in the meantime.
You too raise some very interesting points. It sure seems just about everybody in Rhode Island public office or employment would not want the details of this fire to come to light.
[/QUOTE]
The scuttlebutt around the state is that this will likely turn into an OJ thing. They may be able to get the plea bargain through for the criminal rap, but there will still be the possibility of civil prosecution where more details may eventually come out.
[QUOTE=wolf_meister]
Caffeine.addict
Heck, I’ll grant you there is a huge difference between lighting a match and setting off a pyrotechnic display. (I thought I made that clear in my previous post). Also I know the Cocoanut Grove was the pinnacle of fire violations. The exit signs were obscured, exit doors that weren’t welded shut opened inward and not outwards. I think I’ll cite the Wikipedia article again: rest of the quote removed by me
[/QUOTE]
I think that the difference if large enough that the comparison between the two regarding fault doesn’t really apply.
There does seem to be an issue as to whether the sound proofing was the proper kind. However, I think that only an idiot would set off pyrotechnics in that kind of club and to do so deserves some kind of punishment as seems to have been the case.
I think that some kind of punishment is merited for the owners and for the pyrotechnics guy however, I don’t think that a lengthy prison sentence is the right punishment.
These guys are probably going to get hit with a massively large civil suit which will wipe them out financially. That coupled with the prison sentences seems appropriate to me.
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
These guys are probably going to get hit with a massively large civil suit which will wipe them out financially.
[/QUOTE]
Probably not. They’ve both already declared and been awarded a bankruptcy judgement. If the civil suit does anything at all, it will be just to give the victim’s families some sort of closure.
My brother was arrested in the late 80’s for flicking his Bic at a Heart concert at Riverfront Coliseum (aka U.S. Bank Arena). It boggles the mind why anyone would think pyrotechnics in a smaller, crowded club would be a good idea.
The good thing is that there were lessons learned that have changed fire code laws around the country. One hopes that it will have prevented other senseless deaths.
Caffeine.addict
As with all comparisons and analogies, they are never 100% dead on accurate. (Mine certainly was not). Still, another interesting similarity is the fact that the owner of the Cocoanut Grove and the owners of The Station were allowed to continue running their establishments despite fire violations. Now I see why there may have been a lot of people that were quite agreeable to the plea bargain and did not want some very incriminating facts to be brought out during a trial.
and Eutychus
I hope that a civil trial will at least bring out the fact that corruption and knowing the “right people” had a great deal to do with this tragedy.