Death in Laval
- Thread starter Lawless
- Start date
My_dingaling said:
I don't know what the theory being advanced is, but at the time they originally went to a Montreal attorney there had been media reports that warning signs were posted in French but not English on the fence that these boys climbed over. It is not known exactly what those signs said; it was speculated that they should have said "Danger", and the word is the same in both English and French. If the sign said something else in French not comprehensible to those English speaking boys, a negligent failure to warn could be one POSSIBLE theory. It was mentioned by some in response to this that all one needs to do is comply with the law, which only requires posting of warning signs in French, which then relieves the landowner of liability. This is not the test for liability for negligence in any jurisdiction in the USA. Liability is premised upon forseeability of the harm, and if you are a property owner and know that unilingual English speaking dudes go to a bar next to your property, then it is foreseeable they could come on your property. I don't know the law in Quebec, but if forseeability is not the test on a negligent failure to warn theory I would be shocked. In any event, that theory would be valid in any of the 50 US states. It's the first basic concept you learn in torts class in the 1st year of law school that complying with the law as codified does not relieve you from liability in common law negligence if it was foreseeable that harm would result from not taking additional precautions not necessarily required by codified law. This is a common law doctrine, i.e. foreseeability of the harm. See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928).
I tried to post a link explaining the case on wikpedia but the new software is messing up the link.
Last edited:
EB, all I can say is "blablabla..." I said it before in this thread, the language of the signs is irrelevent. This is mainly for 2 reasons:
The cab company will never be held responsible for the driver who presumably chased the kids for 2 reasons:
And the quarry owners won't be sued either because the kids climbed the fence. Usually, a fence is there for a reason. Climbing a fence and worst, not looking what's on the other side before jumping only implicates the idiot who does it, not the ones who tried to stop them. In Canada, one can't discharge himself from his responsibility by pretending he wasn't stopped. The quarry owners didn't force these kids over the fence, in fact, the fence was there to protect them but the stupid kids selected to jump it anyway. In Canada, when somebody is stupid enough to do a stupid act, too bad for them, it's their fault if something bad happen.
- It was pitch dark and the kids were running. The signs could have been in any language you want, in fonts 1 foot high, they would't have read them or probably would't have obeyed them if they did read them anyhow.
- This happened in Québec and, in Québec, we live in french.
If I go to the USA, can I expect signs in french to warn me of dangers? In Germany, will they have signs in french? Same everywhere when the language isn't the same as the person visiting. There's no way all possible languages could be posted on the sign so, anybody could sue anybody if your argument had an ounce of probability to be applicable. Even if the signs would be written in all languages on earth, some money-hungry American lawyer would probably try to convince the family to sue on the ground there was so much writing on the sign it was confusing.
The cab company will never be held responsible for the driver who presumably chased the kids for 2 reasons:
- Nobody can prove the taxi driver have anything to do with the kid's death.
- In Montréal, taxi drivers are independent who only contract a dispatch service.
And the quarry owners won't be sued either because the kids climbed the fence. Usually, a fence is there for a reason. Climbing a fence and worst, not looking what's on the other side before jumping only implicates the idiot who does it, not the ones who tried to stop them. In Canada, one can't discharge himself from his responsibility by pretending he wasn't stopped. The quarry owners didn't force these kids over the fence, in fact, the fence was there to protect them but the stupid kids selected to jump it anyway. In Canada, when somebody is stupid enough to do a stupid act, too bad for them, it's their fault if something bad happen.
Not a very winnable case.Make Up Your Mind
Metoo4
In any legal proceedings the case would have to be argued according to the applicable statutes of the jurisdiction.
So far you are selecting elements from at least four jurisdictions. Quebec,
Canada (you cannot make-up your mind on this one),USA and Germany for starters.
metoo4 said:
Metoo4
In any legal proceedings the case would have to be argued according to the applicable statutes of the jurisdiction.
So far you are selecting elements from at least four jurisdictions. Quebec,
Canada (you cannot make-up your mind on this one),USA and Germany for starters.
MD,
The only part of the "why" question that matters to an attorney is the financial one.
For the family, I think the "why" is not only financial but also something called DISCOVERY. Discovery means their attorneys get to ask questions that have not been asked or answered, or have not been answered adequately or properly by the authorities, in depositions or, as they call them in New York, EBTs or examinations before trial. I don't know what they are called in Quebec. Discovery is also done via service of assorted written requests, which are done either informally, or formally as freedom of information act requests, or in litigation as "interrogatories" and "requests for production."
Based on what I have read, the family obviously thinks the Laval police department is staffed with so many fat, lazy, donut munching morons who have not done their jobs. In the litigation discovery process, you get to take depositions in which you get to ask those fat, lazy donut munching morons if they did what they were supposed to do in investigating this case. Will this lead to the discovery of any new information or leads? Maybe, maybe not. For me, that is the fun part - getting to ask the questions that should have been asked. That's what my clients pay me to do. For the family, they hope to hear answers they thought should have been coming earlier.
You will maybe learn the name of the taxi driver (you subpoena the taxi company's payroll and attendance records) and if he is ID'd get the name of the executor of his estate if he is dead. Your get to learn what was on the fence (subpoena the quarry's records to get the name of the fence company they used), whether there was illuminating in the area where they climbed the fence, if any (you will find this out when you get the name of the fence company and subpoena them). It's possible that you will identify witnesses who have not come forward and given statements to the police, for whatever reason. I suspect that the Red Lite personnel on duty that night could also receive subpoenas.
It should be noted that there were media reports that did not identify the taxi driver but said he committed suicide. Wouldn't you want to know who he was and why he killed himself if you were the family?
In summary, a lawsuit will allow the family to conduct their own investigation through what is called the DISCOVERY PROCESS.
I have handled a few wrongful death cases and in addition to getting compensated, your 5 step process leaves out something that is very important: getting information about the deaths of their loved ones that the authorities failed to obtain and/or is not giving out. That's why they need the discovery process. I am actually very surprised by your question, because this answer should be fairly obvious if you have read the many media reports on this case which Captain Renault has been kind enough to post. These families do not feel that the investigation identified what happened to their boys, so they will try to learn the truth through the discovery process in litigation.
Is it right for them to second guess? I don't have the answer for that and I am also biased, because I get paid to second guess everyone for a living. You have to answer that question by supposing that your sons or daughters were in the same situation and befell the same fate as Kraynak and Wright. Would you want those answers? Or would you want closure? I find that it varies depending on the client.
It was posted above that the coroner's office did not share its report with the family before releasing it publicly. Here, doing something like that is unthinkable. That kind of shit invites litigation. It is BULLSHIT as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that the Laval authorities did not do a very good job communicating with these families and now they be embroiled in litigation discovery because of it. You don't think those families want to see the coroner's report????????????
In the litigation I have been involved in, a very good percentage of it is started by miscommunication between the litigants that one or both feels must be resolved by the Courts. It is the way of obtaining closure for some.
The only part of the "why" question that matters to an attorney is the financial one.
For the family, I think the "why" is not only financial but also something called DISCOVERY. Discovery means their attorneys get to ask questions that have not been asked or answered, or have not been answered adequately or properly by the authorities, in depositions or, as they call them in New York, EBTs or examinations before trial. I don't know what they are called in Quebec. Discovery is also done via service of assorted written requests, which are done either informally, or formally as freedom of information act requests, or in litigation as "interrogatories" and "requests for production."
Based on what I have read, the family obviously thinks the Laval police department is staffed with so many fat, lazy, donut munching morons who have not done their jobs. In the litigation discovery process, you get to take depositions in which you get to ask those fat, lazy donut munching morons if they did what they were supposed to do in investigating this case. Will this lead to the discovery of any new information or leads? Maybe, maybe not. For me, that is the fun part - getting to ask the questions that should have been asked. That's what my clients pay me to do. For the family, they hope to hear answers they thought should have been coming earlier.
You will maybe learn the name of the taxi driver (you subpoena the taxi company's payroll and attendance records) and if he is ID'd get the name of the executor of his estate if he is dead. Your get to learn what was on the fence (subpoena the quarry's records to get the name of the fence company they used), whether there was illuminating in the area where they climbed the fence, if any (you will find this out when you get the name of the fence company and subpoena them). It's possible that you will identify witnesses who have not come forward and given statements to the police, for whatever reason. I suspect that the Red Lite personnel on duty that night could also receive subpoenas.
It should be noted that there were media reports that did not identify the taxi driver but said he committed suicide. Wouldn't you want to know who he was and why he killed himself if you were the family?
In summary, a lawsuit will allow the family to conduct their own investigation through what is called the DISCOVERY PROCESS.
I have handled a few wrongful death cases and in addition to getting compensated, your 5 step process leaves out something that is very important: getting information about the deaths of their loved ones that the authorities failed to obtain and/or is not giving out. That's why they need the discovery process. I am actually very surprised by your question, because this answer should be fairly obvious if you have read the many media reports on this case which Captain Renault has been kind enough to post. These families do not feel that the investigation identified what happened to their boys, so they will try to learn the truth through the discovery process in litigation.
Is it right for them to second guess? I don't have the answer for that and I am also biased, because I get paid to second guess everyone for a living. You have to answer that question by supposing that your sons or daughters were in the same situation and befell the same fate as Kraynak and Wright. Would you want those answers? Or would you want closure? I find that it varies depending on the client.
It was posted above that the coroner's office did not share its report with the family before releasing it publicly. Here, doing something like that is unthinkable. That kind of shit invites litigation. It is BULLSHIT as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that the Laval authorities did not do a very good job communicating with these families and now they be embroiled in litigation discovery because of it. You don't think those families want to see the coroner's report????????????
In the litigation I have been involved in, a very good percentage of it is started by miscommunication between the litigants that one or both feels must be resolved by the Courts. It is the way of obtaining closure for some.
Last edited:
Closure
EB,
You are correct about closure and how important it is to the survivors.
One of the problems with this specific case is that it stradles the line between criminal and civil with the added element of death by misadventure.
If the driver had come forth and filed a police report about the alleged incident we would be much further ahead.
The Laval police have been known to take the easy way out and under investigate situations. There have been other cases that have reached the media.
You raise the issue of discovery or "interrogatoire" as it is called in French.
This approach would have merit if sufficient work was done resulting in a cover-up or the selective use and release of information that was uncovered.
Sadly this does not seem to be the case in this situation. Any investigating that was done seems to have been extremely superficial so what may be learned under the circumstances would be deficient.
EB,
You are correct about closure and how important it is to the survivors.
One of the problems with this specific case is that it stradles the line between criminal and civil with the added element of death by misadventure.
If the driver had come forth and filed a police report about the alleged incident we would be much further ahead.
The Laval police have been known to take the easy way out and under investigate situations. There have been other cases that have reached the media.
You raise the issue of discovery or "interrogatoire" as it is called in French.
This approach would have merit if sufficient work was done resulting in a cover-up or the selective use and release of information that was uncovered.
Sadly this does not seem to be the case in this situation. Any investigating that was done seems to have been extremely superficial so what may be learned under the circumstances would be deficient.
Similar threads
