Questions about liability and murder

[Zebra]

Steming from this thread about the wife of the BTK killer, people claim that the killer has a financial liability to the victims families.

Huh?

He murdered them. He didn’t make a faulty product that killed them, he didn’t create unsafe conditions in the workplace that resulted in their deaths. He just murdered them.

Do murders (plain old murder) have a financial liability? Are there laws on the books in some states?
Another thing in that thread is that the Kanas prosecutor is looking for repayment for the public defender.

Huh?

Can the State supply an attorney and then charge you for it?

[Shagnasty]

Remember the OJ Simpson case? He lost the civil trial. You can sue just about anyone for anything. Those are civil cases.

[pravnik]

@Zebra

Steming from this thread about the wife of the BTK killer, people claim that the killer has a financial liability to the victims families.

Huh?

He murdered them. He didn’t make a faulty product that killed them, he didn’t create unsafe conditions in the workplace that resulted in their deaths. He just murdered them.

Do murders (plain old murder) have a financial liability? Are there laws on the books in some states?

Sure. Often, it’s “wrongful death.” If you kill someone negligently you’re civilly liable, so why wouldn’t you be liable for doing so intentionally?

Another thing in that thread is that the Kanas prosecutor is looking for repayment for the public defender.

Huh?

Can the State supply an attorney and then charge you for it?

Sure can; when I represent someone as a court appointed lawyer part of their probation fees (if they get probation) involves paying the county back what the county paid me. You have a right to representation, but not necessarily to free representation.

[Kent_Clark]

@Zebra

Can the State supply an attorney and then charge you for it?

Didn’t you ever watch Dragnet?

If you can not afford an attorney one will be provided to you.

If you can afford an attorney, you’ll be expected to pay for it.

[Bricker]

As to the question of liability… sure. If I kill you, I have damaged your family. If you were a breadwinner, your family has lost your wage-earning potential for the rest of your life. Your spouse has loss the consortium of marriage.

In short - your gross negligence has damaged other people. They can sue you to make themselves whole.

[Zebra]

That seems to me, to misuse a legal term, some sort of Double Jeapordy. In the case in question the guy has been convicted and is going to jail forever. Sueing his ‘estate’, such as it is, it’s just kicking someone who is already down.

@pravnik

Sure can; when I represent someone as a court appointed lawyer part of their probation fees (if they get probation) involves paying the county back what the county paid me. You have a right to representation, but not necessarily to free representation.

But what if you are convicted?

[eviladam_part_2]

i could see some kind of lawsuit to give any proceeds from selling the story rights to the families of the victims. maybe that’s what’s happening.

i’m pretty sure that happened to Dahmer. the victims’ families sued him for some ridiculous amount, to make sure that he didn’t get rich by selling the movie/book rights.

[Bricker]

@Zebra

That seems to me, to misuse a legal term, some sort of Double Jeapordy. In the case in question the guy has been convicted and is going to jail forever. Sueing his ‘estate’, such as it is, it’s just kicking someone who is already down.

It may be that his estate is valueless, in which case your judgement against his estate is worthless.

But if his estate has assets, why shouldn’t they go to restoring the damage that he has caused? Let’s say he kills a 30-year-old man who made $50,000 per year. That victim’s family has now lost its breadwinner. They are surely entitled to some recompense for that loss. And it’s not theoretical “pain and suffering.” It’s a quantifiable monetary loss. The victim had a lifetime ahead of him as a wage earner. That’s money that the family would have had, but for the negligent actions of the murderer.

His incarceration is the punishment inflicted by the government. Now we’re talking about making whole the harm he did to another person. These are completely different concepts.

[Gfactor]

The Supreme Court discussed this here:

There can be little doubt, on the other hand, that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that victims of crime are compensated by those who harm them. Every State has a body of tort law serving exactly this interest.

[Gfactor]

@Zebra

That seems to me, to misuse a legal term, some sort of Double Jeopardy.

The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple *criminal *punishments for the same offense

(Emphasis added).

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

BTW, in the case of murder or other violent crime, the torts would include assault and battery. Wrongful death statutes give the heirs the right to sue for damages when a relative is killed. Here is the business part of the Michigan statute:

(1) Whenever the death of a person or injuries resulting in death shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, the person who or the corporation that would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under circumstances that constitute a felony.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-600-2922&queryid=11857563&highlight=wrongful%20death

An assault occurs when:

an assailant engages in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm and has the present ability to inflict such harm or engages in an overt act intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of bodily harm and creates such reasonable fear or apprehension in the victim.

FindLaw's VA case and opinions.

A battery occurs when an assailant:

(a) acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) an offensive [or harmful] contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

(2) An act which is not done with the intention stated in Subsection (1, a) does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.

FindLaw's CO case and opinions.

[Gfactor]

Here is a case that I won on appeal to the Intermediat Court of Appeals involving a murder. I left the firm (and the state) before the case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court, and I think the court pretty clearly got the wrong answer. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@Gfactor

Here is a case that I won on appeal to the Intermediat Court of Appeals involving a murder. I left the firm (and the state) before the case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court, and I think the court pretty clearly got the wrong answer. :rolleyes:

Did you try the case as well, or just handle the appellate work?