Re: AEG Wants Katherine Jackson Lawsuit Dismissed
If I recall correctly, the only signature on the contract was that of Conrad Murray.
I remember Randy Phillips saying that they (AEG) would not be signing the contract UNTIL Michael signed the contract.
If I recall correctly, then that's just MORE food for thought as to all of the STALLING that was going on, in my opinion.
You recall correctly and I agree with your last point.
although AEG would argue that the contract was never signed by MJ, I think with all the draft and communication and the contract was to cover period of May 09 to March 10, a good lawyer could make a case for an oral contract and establish the relationship between AEG and Murray.
this is something we discussed before and I agree. Furthermore this is an equipment that is used after something goes wrong, I'm no medical expert but we don't see any preventive monitoring equipment request from Murray. It shows how careless Murray was IMO.
are they? the previous company that I worked for always hired certified and insured contractors so that they wouldn't be responsible. I wonder if we can check this further.
Bold part. Yes, all parties CAN be held responsible in whole, or, in part. I used to work for a law firm who specialized in insurance claims/lawsuits. In short, let's say you are involved in a car accident and are at fault. The other driver sues you. However, because you have car insurance, your alert your insurance company who later provides a lawyer to represent you in court, free of cost. The firm I worked would provide your free lawyer on behalf of the insurance co. We also dealt with claims from homeowners, and business owners...all who are required to carry insurance for a variety of reason. From experience with that (note: I am NOT a lawyer so this is in no way considered legal advice) as well as some time I spent as a juror on a civil case, I can say various parties can be held for their part of an "injury".
Example: A developer wants to build a housing division. He contracts plumbers, architects, electricians, carpenters, etc... EACH one of those contractors has to carry their own separate insurance (at least in the State of Florida, not sure about California) as well as the developer who, more than likely would have what's called an umbrella policy for liability insurance.
EVERYBODY has to be licensed and insured separately, but the developer is STILL responsible, in part, for EVERYBODY. It's the developers job to make sure everyone they contract with or sub-contract with is licensed and insured and do their jobs appropriately. And if, for any reason, it's determined that the developer OR one of his contractors (plumbers, electricians, etc..) has been negligent in any way and were aware (or should have been aware) of said negligence or covered up anything after the fact, they CAN be held responsible.
Now, as a juror, I found out that in lawsuits, jurors are asked to assign responsibility when determining judgment/culpability. Let's say there's a fire in one of the developer's homes caused by faulty electric hookup. The developer can be sued becuz they were responsible for selecting the electric firm. The electrician firm can be sued and included as a plaintiff in the same suit becuz their firm did the actual work. Both the developer and electrician's insurances will kick in and provide lawyers to defend each separately or as a team. Jurors may be asked to decide the percentage of culpability of both; Developer 40%; electric firm 60% or vice versa. If more contractors are deemed responsible and were included in the suit, they, too, can be assigned a percentage of culpability in a judgment. The developer doesn't get off simply becuz each contractor has their own separate liability insurance.
NOW, having said that, it's possible a jury could say the developer had 0% culpability and it all rested with the electric firm if the evidence points to that. However, it's wise for anyone suing a business to go after the main business as well as any contractors or sub-contractors involved. It's generally left up to the jury to decide who they feel bears the most, least or no responsibilty. Cali may have diff State laws about such.
do not even go there. I'm fed up with when someone says something opposite to what other people might be saying that they instantly labelled as X/Y/Z's supporter or on payroll. It's called difference of opinion.
no of course a CPR machine should have raised red flags and someone should have asked "why do you need that for?" - I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
but comparing how visible of botox versus propofol is a different thing. Botox injections are quite visible (as they can cause redness, swelling in the face) and the way your skin look will be different afterwards (look to people in hollywood). plus they were accompanied with demerol (pain medication) and the most common effect of pain medication is drowsiness and sleep.
propofol doesn't have that much visible effects.
Agree with the diff between botox and propofol. At the same time, I wonder if Murray asked for a CPR machine to be used in Cali or to be provided in London only. Michael HAS had issues with dehydration and not eating/sleeping during rehearsals/shows. His heart gave out as a result before (HBO special) so it's not "unusual" for this type of equipment to be requested for him...to me, at least. I would raise my eyebrows if it were not...propofol or not. And I "believe" it was standard op for him to have a doctor with him on tours. So none of this sounds odd to me. Seems typical. What's odd is a doctor using propofol in this way, leaving the patient unattended, and not having proper equipment should something go wrong.
that's the whole argument of AEG.
They say that their contract says it promises safe travel and safe concerts/work environment and they also mention a lawsuit about a landlord (as they were paying MJ's rent they can be seen as landlord) that says landlord will be responsible for injuries happened due to the premises but not the injuries caused by a visitor.
It's all about where the responsibilities start and end.
Actually, the landlord is normally the person who actually OWNS the property. The person paying the rent is simply a renter...whether it was Michael himself or if AEG was making the payments on his behalf. If they were making the payments on his behalf, IMO, they were nothing more than an intermediary rent manager. The landlord is the person who actually OWNS that house and was leasing it out. Had an injury happened there, that person's homeowner's insurance would kick in to cover any injuries/damages to Michael or his kids or any visitors. At the same time, HAD a visitor gotten bitten by Kenya, Michael, as the dog's owner, could have been sued as well.
Yes, it's all about where responsibility begins and ends. Juries are usually asked to suss that out.
comes from KJ's lawsuit - she claims that on June 18 riot act Michael was told to not see Klein.
and an interesting development has anyone seen today's TMZ story? (below). If you read it you'll see that Ortega will collaborate the June Riot Act (good for KJ's lawsuit - interesting that she's also suing Ortega) but cancellation of the next 2 rehearsals actually show caring for Michael's well being on AEG's part. (Of course if true)
Michael Jackson's producer/director for the "This Is It" tour will be a star witness for the prosecution in Dr. Conrad Murray's preliminary hearing which begins today ... sources tell TMZ.
Our sources tell us ... Kenny Ortega will testify that on June 19, 2009 -- a week before MJ died -- Michael complained he was cold, had the shakes and was unable to perform ... so the rehearsal was canceled.
The next day -- June 20 -- an emergency meeting was held at Michael's home. Kenny Ortega, several big wigs from AEG, Michael, and Dr. Conrad Murray were present. We're told the meeting was "intense, loud and argumentative." Kenny read Michael the riot act, imploring him to take better care of himself because the tour was imminent.
Ortega will testify, during the meeting, Dr. Murray said some "terrible things," showing a lack of concern and respect for Michael. Our sources would not reveal specifics, but we're told it's "damaging" to Murray.
Sources say rehearsals were canceled on June 21 and 22 so Michael could regain his strength. Ortega will testify ... when rehearsals resumed on June 23 and 24 -- the day before Jackson died -- Michael did a complete turnaround, wowing the backup dancers and others present with his moves and singing.
Ortega's testimony is important, because prosecutors will argue MJ was fine before Murray began pumping him with drugs the day he died.
I agree. Allowing those 2 days would show AEG gave MJ time to recupperate and showed due care/concern, however, some seem to feel that this particular showdown should have resulted in the entire cancellation or postponement of the London shows. This is prolly why Kenny is included. They prolly felt instead of telling MJ to get himself together, Kenny and others should have just shut production down until Michael was "well" again. The question tho is even after MJ got "well" again, would the dehydration, the not sleeping/not eating start up again once he started rehearsing again? Never-ending cycle.
The reality is this: Once Michael signed on that dotted line and the money started flowing out of AEG's pockets, those shows were not going away. He either had to do them...the 10...the 30...or all 50 at some point, or yes, AEG was going to sue the ish outta him for the money they spent/loss.
