Taxpayers would pay in Janklow lawsuit

Associated Press ^ | July 13, 2004 | Carson Walker

[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.

[BraveMan]

What do you think, Federal or State employee?

Should the family prevail in their wrongful-death lawsuit (and quite frankly I don't see how they couldn't), I would expect former Rep. Bill Janklow to bear the primary responsibility for the judgement awarded.

Regardless, if this does become a taxpayer burden (as I suspect it will), I will have zero problem with paying my fair share. I would not wish to deny the Scott family their right to compensation in any way.

This is probably where we find out Janklow has zero paper worth, matching his character worth . . .

[spunkets]

He's a fed employee. Janklow's estate should pay the full amount.

[JoeSixPack1]

Janklow should pay the full amount, agreed.

BUT -

Whatever it takes to get an award in favor of Randy Scotts family is fine with me. If S.D. has to cough up a wad of cash to cover Janklow's worthless arse, then I absoleutly agree with BraveMan. Pay Up.

The only loser here would be Mr Scotts family. I do not want to see them lose anything more than they already did because of this 'sleezebucket elite political insider/overseer/murderer'.

Screw the politics and the corrupt judge rulings on this one and make S.D. & Janklow pay up, and make it hurt. If S.D. wnats to elect and protect their elites, let 'em. Maybe it will hurt taxpayers/voters enough to where they'll think twice before electing schmucks consecutively for 4 terms and turning them into Kings who rule the peasants.

PS - Randy Scott is still dead. That won't change.
Janklow is now a free man who in the eyes of the law has paid his debt to society. Now it's time to pay the family and I guess we're all supposed to just move along from there.

[The Great RJ]

Too bad this law wasn't in effect when Teddy Kennedy drove that girl off the bridge--the US taxpayers would have been paying for that one too. At least Teddy forked over personal money for his crime and didn't stick the taxpayers.

I guess according to this ruling a member of Congress could violate all Ten Commandments simultaneously on the way to some political rally and have the taxpayers pick up the civil liability. Too bad somebody didn't tell Clinton about this law since the taxpayers could have paid for the drycleaning of Monica's blue dress.

[Wolfie]

"And the fact that he was convicted of a criminal act did not take him out of the scope of employment...

He's a Congressman. I fully expect that criminal acts are not out of his scope of employment. Heck, they should write it into the job description.

[af_vet_rr]

Everybody is equal. Some are more equal than others.

[July 4th]

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.

Yes - there are volumes and volumes of cases, casebooks, treatises, etc. that address this topic to death. Under the current state of the law across the entire country, there is no room for dispute in this case. The judge is exactly right.

The idea is that a victim should have a fair amount of resources available for recovery. By holding an employer liable for actions of an employee, the law attempts to protect the victim.

If an employee commits an act while working, the employer is liable. The only factual question that needs to be answered is when the employee is doing something not specifically in his job description. Then you have a legal analysis between a "frolic" and a "mere detour." These are the actual legal terms.

If an employee goes out on a drive, goes off his route for a few miles to get a cup of coffee, and hits someone on the way, that's a "mere detour" and the employer is still liable. If the employee decides to skip an hour of work to visit his mother 10 miles off his normal route, that's a "frolic" and the employer is not liable.

[Poohbah]

So, when I drove cross-country after 9/11 to get back home, was I on a mere detour or was I frolicking?

[leadpenny]

Would an active duty serviceman (on duty 24/7) get the same treatment under the same circumstances? I doubt it.

[July 4th]

So, when I drove cross-country after 9/11 to get back home, was I on a mere detour or was I frolicking?

Well, it's a factual inquiry, so you'd likely be quizzed on what you were doing away from home, how much of your trip was business related, etc. If it was a business trip, a plaintiff could make a good case that you were within the scope of employment, and a court would be more likely to impose liability if your employer knew that's how you would be returning home.

[Poohbah]

Well, it's a factual inquiry, so you'd likely be quizzed on what you were doing away from home, how much of your trip was business related, etc.

I was on a business trip to Washington--I was less than 2 miles from the Pentagon.

If it was a business trip, a plaintiff could make a good case that you were within the scope of employment, and a court would be more likely to impose liability if your employer knew that's how you would be returning home.

Employer knew and approved.