A fugitive who took a Kansas couple hostage in their home sued them for $235,000. Accused murderer Jesse Dimmick claims Jared and Lindsay Rowley accepted his knifepoint offer of money to hide in their house. But the Rowleys later breached their "oral contract" by escaping as he slept, Dimmick says, "resulting in my being shot in the back by authorities."(H/T: Overlawyered; also note the site's "Most Popular Posts of 2011", including the exciting saga of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's fight against "Big Pit interests")
And on the general subject of law, can we really any longer uphold the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Even where there are 40,000 new ones?
2 comments:
Oddly enough I'm not worried about the kidnapper moron, I'm not even worried about the lawyer who took the case. The JUDGE who let it proceed scares the crap out of me.
Well, for every nut like this there is a lawyer who thnks he can make money off of the case. Either he can get a settlement or he can find a jury that will give him the verdict. The civil courts are just as much to blame as the nutter.
I remember a case a long time ago in California. Some guy was driving his RV down the road when his wife had just finished cooking lunch. He put the thing on cruise control and went back to eat lunch.
Nobody told him the RV wouldn't do corners on its own so he sued. For every case there is a lawyer who thinks he can win more money than he is putting out. There are a lot of verdicts out there that give them the notion they can come out ahead.
Post a Comment