One of the aggressors has been criminally convicted and the other committed suicide when allegations about him surfaced. There are multiple victims of the school’s employees identified (and at least some proven in a criminal court).
I’d say the school was already in a hole and the attorney didn’t just jump in and help them dig… the attorney brought in a backhoe to bury them with.
Maybe that’s the school district’s defense. “If one of our teachers was raping her, why the hell would she trust another teacher? Of course he’s going to want some of that too!”
I hate to admit it, but that made me LOL. The attorney’s new slogan should be “Balls in a vice? Come to me and I’ll twist them twice.”
Some guy with an opinion = William Grimm, senior attorney with Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law. Yeah … what the hell is he doing even having an opinion on the law when we have **John Mace **to tell everyone what they need to know.
He’s an advocate for a particular point of view. And good for him. But that doesn’t make him objectively right.
No. Obviously you’re right … because you say so.
Listen, I was just adding some info from the article that offered a counter-point to what you said. And I thought I’d done it a relatively benign way. Lord knows where you butt-hurtedness came from.
Guys, the school is (probably) not saying that the plaintiff’s carelessness caused the assault, they are likely saying that the future bad outcomes (continued maladaptation in adulthood) do not flow from this incident.
Suppose a victim is molested as a teenager, then in the victim’s mid-20s, the claimant becomes addicted to benzos and can’t hold down a job (something that also happens to plenty of people not molested). It is impossible to distinguish how much of that outcome is due to the assault and how much is due to exogenous factors (pre-existing mental illnesses or voluntary poor life choices). It is for this that the school district contends there is contributory negligence. (I presume.)
Meh. Lord knows what your idea of “butthurtedness” is. Hint: When someone winks about a comment, it’s generally an indication that it’s a joke.
This is a local news story of me, and it’s been in the papers for weeks. It’s always been explained away as SOP for the defense. Seems to me the only butthurtedness in this thread, if there is any, is all the R.O. spewing forth.
And which point of view would you happen to be advocating right now?
This “defense” may well have been offered up without the input of any lawyer. This was a 'statement" (i.e., press release) provided by the school district. Any lawyer with any brains probably would have told the district to say, “Unfortunately we cannot comment on any pending litigation.” The particular argument in question may or may not be in the court documents (we don’t know from the story), and if it is may not use the same inflammatory language.
Of course, this puts the district superintendent WAY beyond stupid. Making this argument in a courtroom is one thing – putting it in a press release is like committing public suicide. There is no possible good that can accrue to the school district from it.
You’re right. “She would have been a looser anyway, even if our employees hadn’t been molesting her” will play so much better in the court of public opinion.
Heaven’s knows that if I had a child with pre-existing mental handicaps, I wouldn’t try to hold a school accountable just because their employees took advantage of it.
Let’s reconstruct the scene of the crime.
You said, " This is standard defense boilerplate. The lawyers could be probably be deemed incompetent if they didn’t assert this." And followed it up with a winky “you lose the internet.”
However, there was a rebuttal of your opinion right in the article, so I pointed it out. Then I jokingly gave the internet back – sorry, I don’t do winkies.
Here’s the thing though … I didn’t think your comment - that a senior attorney with Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law was “just some guy,” - was fair play. It sounded to me like your comment was born from from some butt-hurtedness on your part that I had the gall to point out something from the article that contradicted your say-so.
William Grimm is a 1975 University of Maryland Law graduate who has never been a defense attorney. He’s no more an expert on the ethical obligations of defense counsel than any other attorney, and quite a bit less than many. And he’s certainly not an expert, or even informed, on what is and is not a plausible defense in this particular case.
John Mace’s view is much closer to reality. Foregoing a potentially applicable defense because it looks bad is malpractice. Since, as Kimmy_Gibbler points out, the defense may be applicable to some parts of the damages rather than the molestation incidents themselves, I wouldn’t hang my hat on Mr. Grimm’s quote.
Another article (Nov 2) by a paper that apparently has been investigating this case (bolding mine): http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_21906364
So, yes, they claimed she is at least partly responsible for her own abuse in their legal filing (not just a school administrator talking and not a claim about missed opportunities later in life)
Superintendent’s full response: ( Moraga superintedent responds to media reports – The Mercury News )
So… they don’t claim any evidence… just that if they can pull something out along those lines, they want to be free to use it in the future. So, as far as I’m concerned… we (the general public) are entirely free to ridicule them for being giant dicks.
**
When you say accountable you are lumping the accountability of the school when the woman was 12 (it’s pretty obvious that the school system failed) with the accountability of the school for things that happened the rest of the woman’s life.
It’s obvious that her trauma had repercussions that continued into adulthood. But how is it possible to determine the damage to her income from trauma versus the result of her own capabilities and choices? I believe THAT is what the school’s attorneys have targeted.
No doubt they expect to be held liable for what happened. They just disagree that ALL of the plaintiff’s listed problems, lost income and damages were the result of the trauma.
On edit - OK - Trumped by Enkel
I wouldn’t trust some reporters characterization of the pleading. I highly doubt it says what that article says.
We should see if we can find it.
It wasn’t a “characterization of the pleading”-it was a quote. Do you have a particular reason to distrust this particular reporter?
It’s not a quote. Read it again.
Actually it wasn’t a quote and that does bug me. BUT, a reporting SHOULD be held to a certain latitude in interpretation. I would also like to see the actual court document. In my local area, someone would have to pay for a copy of it. They are then free to scan and post it anywhere because it is a public record. But my local court wants paid for making a paper copy and will not provide electronic copies of documents.
Is anyone in the area that can see what it would take to get copies of the documents filed in this case?
The case is Cunnnae v. Moraga School District, MSC12-02300 in the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County. The docs aren’t available online.
Apparently you can order copies by mail:
Court Records
1111 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
But typically an Answer just pleads the affirmative defense generally, it does not say something like “contributed to her ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a middle school teacher.” That’s the kind of inference a reporter who is not legally trained might make.