There are still some witnesses left to testify and may speak to "foreseeability." We shall see.
the only relevant probably would be Dr. Finkelstein.
In your scenarios, the risk unfortunately starts with the first sentence for both sides. Faye, albeit with quite a bit of histrionics, testified she was aware of how doctors in the past proved to be problematic.
and now you changed the scenario, what Faye knew or thought doesn't really matter unless AEG people were also aware of it.
Jacksons lawyers mentioned Finkelstein told Gongaware, and Finkelstein has not testified yet.
AEG mentionned Debbie on history tour, Gongaware was there at the same time. So she (and maybe Ratner) could also say that Gongaware knew, or paid the doctor as he was in charge of the tour. Gongaware said that there was no doctor on History tour.
given that Debbie is AEG's witness and AEG's defense is "no one knew", I would not expect Debbie to say Gongaware knew.
bolded : so propofol is not relevant.
particular risk , that's what AEG is aiming for.
Not only I have given the definitions and a lot of examples of the cases where negligent hiring claims was lost. It might not make sense to you personally but their argument makes sense legally.
You will see in all the examples negligent hiring requires the employer reasonably able to see the possibility of the
exact or similar (which is explained as particular on jury instructions) harm. As given the most common example if an employee beats up a customer and he had a history of violence, that's foreseeable behavior.
Michael died of Propofol /anesthesia overdose . Now it's a nuance , yes , but it's also as I said very valid defense. It's no different than the examples I posted before, it's no different than saying (and winning) a reasonable person cannot foresee that someone who resisted arrest in the past will beat a customer in the future.
Sure a jury might look to this as "overdose is overdose and the drug of choice doesn't matter" but AEG can still argue "a 1993 pain killer addiction cannot make anyone reasonably foresee an anesthesia overdose 16 years later".
and it's not just the trial. Regardless of who wins I'm sure the decision would appealed to the highest court.
You talk about foreseeabilty : it was (maybe) not foreseeable at the time of hiring , unless we hear that PG knew about past drug issues. But it was foreseeable seeing Michael's health was declining at exactly the same time Murray was treating him, to the point he was not able to rehearse properly or could not rehearse at all on the 19th. He was better on 23rd & 24th, but still had some weird symptoms. (which I think is probably the reason Phillips was at the house on 24th : Michael only did 2 songs and was better, but not really well either)
you say "it was foreseeable seeing Michael's health was declining at exactly the same time Murray was treating him" but ignore that no one was able to foresee and tie it to Murray. They talked about nutrition, psychologist / therapist etc not Murray. Even the people at the house who saw Murray spending the night and who saw oxygen tanks was able to tie it back to Murray. So if no one was able to see it then how can you say it's reasonable to foresee it? Are you adding hindsight to your decision? Yes now we know Murray was giving Michael propofol for 6 weeks in an absolutely wrong way but they did not know it.
It doesn't matter to me what AEG or others thought what it was (psychological, demerol issue, etc..). It was the doctor's role to diagnose the problem, not AEG's.
Murray? and he said to them Michael was fine. So if the doctor is telling them "everything is fine, you aren't a doctor I am" how would they be able to foresee it?
The doctor kept telling them Michael was fine and could do the shows, according to them. THAT is the problem they could see, the foreseeable risk.
and Michael did the shows and he was improved the next 2 days. So as far as they were concerned what doctor told them was true. So what would they foresee exactly?
If Murray said "he's fine" but Michael came the next day and could not perform, I would agree they could see "uhmm no there's something wrong here". But when Murray says "he's fine, that was just an episode, just flu" and then Michael comes back he's improved, gives best rehearsals, he's happy and smiling (according to Karen), I would think "everything is good, he's fine now".
Building the defense around propofol and secrecy (vs demerol that was visible ? ) will be only to trash Michael. They will talk about Michael's responsability as an adult, minimise Murray's rols as much as possible, hoping the jury will forget that AEG has some responsability too.
To me it's a weak defense, it means they can't adress the real issues, what the Jacksons are saying.
I believe that's not the only defense but I expect them to defend all the points meaning : he wasn't hired, Michael hired him, we could not foresee, little damages.
The problem is why did they do that when they had a full time doctor ? Because they knew the doctor couldn't do it, he was working at night (or highly incompetent, any doctor could have done that).
or the doctor was not a nutrition expert. If you read back Murray's police interview he says he took care of Michael's general health and got a specialist when needed. Nutritionist is a specialist. Such action "refer to a specialist" is the basis of US health system.
