Posted on 02/09/2010 3:54:43 AM PST by marktwain
TAMPA — The mother of a man whose death was ruled justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law filed a wrongful death lawsuit Friday against the man who shot her son.
A civil complaint in Hillsborough Circuit Court says that Charles Podany, 49, acted "with reckless disregard" when he shot 24-year-old Casey Landes on Feb. 29, 2008, in a neighborhood dispute.
Landes' mother, Ruby Landes, seeks damages in excess of $15,000 from Podany as well as the condo association of Bay Hills Village in Thonotosassa, where the incident took place, and its managing authority, the Vanguard Management Group Inc.
A judge tossed out a manslaughter charge against Podany in September, siding with his attorneys, who argued that Podany fired in self-defense and therefore was immune from prosecution under the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
“Loser pays” would also have the beneficial result of putting a lot of lawyers out of work. I remember reading about some country that made “Loser pays” the law and within 1 year major law firms were letting about 1/3 of their lawyers go, as in fired. Now, there’s something I’d like to see.
Yup, however with the various legislatures controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name), what are the chances anything like this would pass here?
“...controlled by the solicitors (I prefer that name)”
You are giving prostitutes a bad name.
Sorry for denigrating prostitutes in this fashion. I guess ambulance chasers would be a better term.
The current crop of legislators in the USA would not pass “Loser pays”, but the tea party movement just might put some people more friendly to the idea in office. Let’s hope and pray!
Good man. LOL!
We (Florida) already have tort reform. The Stand Your Ground law includes a bar against prosecution and then a bar against tort if it involves a righteous shoot. The attacker in this case jumped out of a vehicle, knocked his victim to the ground, and continued to hit the victim. The attacker’s blood was .28 % alcohol. The victim shot the attacker during the fight.
It always seems to me like many of these civil cases are effectively “double jeopardy”.
It seems to me that if you can’t get a conviction for criminal wrong doing, that you shouldn’t be able to bring a subsequent civil suit for damages at all.
That would require fixing the whole lawsuit process - a good idea, but it will take about forever.
Until then, how about a required jury instruction that the defendant in the lawsuit has already been acquitted by a jury of criminal conduct?
You are correct!!!! Florida’s Castile Doctrine will stop her lawsuit in it’s tracks .... unless, some left wing wacko judge decides to contest the law .... he will lose!!
BTTT
This sounds roughly akin to a FReeper’s tagline that I saw recently: “Never pick a fight with an old man - if he’s too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.”
Well, it sounds good, but then what OTHER businesses are they going to go around and infect? You know they're going to end up working somewhere. OTOH, might be worth whatever damage is done just to get them out of the courtrooms.
But but but I thought solicitation was against the law. Hmmm...against the law....but making the laws....has to be a joke in there somewhere.
Talk about giving prostitutes a bad name. I was doing some consulting work on some manufacturing equipment in a plant in Vegas that was building solar collectors, and I noticed some weird activity. I asked and was told that "The Senator" (Harry Reid) was due to make a visit that day. I spent the rest of the day hoping that they didn't bring him round to see the equipment I was working on despite its politically correct nature. I was afraid I'd say something like "I'd call you a c**k s**ker, except that would imply that you serve a purpose!" and then they'd probably shoot me or arrest me or something. I got fortunate; they didn't bring him around and I got to live another day.
Ditto that.
I like Jim Noble's idea of a jury instruction, or perhaps in a case like this with a criminal acquittal raise the civil burden of proof from preponderance to clear and convincing (lower than reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance).
Florida law prevents this lawsuit from ever taking place, so I’m not sure why a lawyer familiar with Florida laws would even try to start a case.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
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.