 |
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan  |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
Posted on 07/13/2004 7:25:30 PM PDT by killjoy
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 · Last updated 6:20 p.m. PT
Taxpayers would pay in Janklow lawsuit
By CARSON WALKER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- A judge ruled Tuesday that former Rep. Bill Janklow was on duty when he caused a deadly traffic accident, meaning taxpayers would have to pay for any civil damages in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
U.S. Magistrate Arthur Boylan sided with a federal prosecutor's conclusion that Janklow, 64, was on official business Aug. 16, 2003, when he sped through a stop sign on a rural road and collided with motorcyclist Randy Scott.
Janklow had appointments or appearances over two days around the state and was on his way home when the accident occurred. Boylan concluded that Janklow did not stop at his mother's home in nearby Flandreau minutes before the accident.
"Even assuming he had stopped to visit his mother ... the diversion would have been inconsequential in this instance," Boylan wrote.
Boylan, ruling in St. Paul, Minn., concluded the federal government should be listed as the defendant in the lawsuit filed by Scott's family members, who are from Minnesota.
Lawyer Ronald Meshbesher wanted the case moved to state court in Minnesota so the family could get punitive damages, which is not allowed in federal court. He said he will appeal.
"The gist of the ruling is that he was acting within the scope of employment," he said. "And the fact that he was convicted of a criminal act did not take him out of the scope of employment because it was foreseeable that his employer, whoever that might be, would have expected a traffic accident."
Janklow, elected to Congress in 2002 after serving a total of 16 years as governor, spent 100 days in jail after his manslaughter conviction in the highway death. He resigned from Congress in January.
His lawyer, William Fuller, and Scott's mother, Marcella Scott, did not want to comment Tuesday. Janklow could not be reached for comment.
ping
I seemed to be the only one who thought it was outrageous that New Yorkers had to pay for a security detail for the mayor's mistress, while also covering his wife and kids. When does the government get off giving my money to support an adulterous affair? Or some drunkerd?
Politicians perks should cease the second their behavior becomes illegal or immoral with my money.
The commission of a crime can never be within the duties of a public official. This ruling, if appealed, will be reversed.
Is the bastard at least going to meet bubba in jail?
In other words, they should have no perks? ;)
He already served his stiff sentence of a whole 100 days.
Let him sign over his pension.
Of course he was "on duty" - this guarantees there will be a giant piece of the action for the extortionists at the Bar Association.
This ruling makes some sense to me. It is perfectly normal for a court to hold that an employer liable for the damages its employee causes while acting within the scope of the employer's duties. I am sure there are hundreds of cases where the employer has been held liable for the damages caused when an employee runs a stop sign.
However, it's worth noting that the employer, while liable, is only secondarily liable. The employee is primarily liable. Thus, here, if the US has to pay the plaintiff, it should be able to recover that payment from Janklow.
I remember reading something a while back that a Police Officer can be sued personally in civil court for what he does on the job. How would that apply to this?
Uh, Yes! Unless you don't want to be a killjoy.
|
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
That is ridiculous. The scope of his employment did not include speeding through a stop sign.
I'm no attorney, but it seems to me there are clearly established legal guidelines for determining when someone is on duty or off duty, driving in the course of their work or out on a jaunt.
Stupid rat judge! Criminal acts are not within the scope of employment. Just as the feds don't have to foresee he was a possible child molester, bank robber, or serial killer, they don't have to foresee he would pay attn and run through stop signs at 70MPH. The judge needs to be overruled.
did he get out on weekends and Holidays?
He was apparently communicating with his constituents and putting his travel expenses to do so on a govm't tab. Criminal acts are not part of the scope of his employment.
That is THE dumbest justification with legalese I have heard in a while
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.