Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[LastTear]

Mr Duke's updates on today.

@AlanDukeCNN: AEG lawyer just said he plans to call Katherine Jackson to testify Monday although plan could change.

@AlanDukeCNN: Judge ruled Jackson's have enough evidence to send the AEG Live wrongful death case to jury, rejects AEG motion to end trial.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, the burden of proof was for the plaintiffs to show it was most likely AEG hired the doctor. I think you know that.

Ivy, Last Tear, you can attempt to prove me wrong. Find any testimony where Michael dictated to AEG he wanted the doctor hired as opposed to an advance. I will give you some help: it does not exist. AEG decided the manner their monies were spent not Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

NO, I can't get over that!!!!!

It might seem minor to YOU, but for me it's major. I hope that's alright with you, you know ME expressing my personal opinion on a message board.

In my opinion, IT'S ALL BAD, but for ME, a patient having a box of propofol is major.

I will also say, that they ALL had a hand in Michael's death, by giving him a false sense of security, whether it was with the Demerol injections or giving him propofol to sleep!

^^Naw I am not offended.

I hope these lawyers finish this 2 issues during the next 4 days, so they don't have to take time next week to complete it.

About this: Judge ruled Jackson's have enough evidence to send the AEG Live wrongful death case to jury, rejects AEG motion to end trial.

We all knew that would happen. Now is the judge saying that there is evidence that AEG hired Muarry due to an oral or implied agreement?
Does this mean that the tv will have TMez back on again to comment on this and the family's chances of winning this case.

 

[LastTear]

Ivy, the burden of proof was for the plaintiffs to show it was most likely AEG hired the doctor. I think you know that.

Ivy, Last Tear, you can attempt to prove me wrong. Find any testimony where Michael dictated to AEG he wanted the doctor hired as opposed to an advance. I will give you some help: it does not exist. AEG decided the manner their monies were spent not Michael.

Yes you are correct the burden of proof was for the Plantiffs to prove AEG hired the doctor, but it doesn't just end there, the actual hiring is the tip of the iceberg (as I have said before) they also need to show proof of the rest of the lawsuit.

No we haven't seen any signed and dated letter from Michael setting out how the doctor was to be hired, but the doctor was there, are you saying Michaels legal team were working on their own contract? Equally, there has been no testimony to say Michael was opposed to it either. Works both ways.

I have no idea which way the jury will decide on the contract.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

I say everyone in this trial had a hand in Michael's death. The Jacksons are responsible for not checking up on Michael. AEG is responsible well, because they are. None of those AEG execs cared about Michael--they wanted the $$$ that was gonna come with what was gonna be the biggest musical comeback in history. Those doctors didn't care because they gave Michael false hope. Love. And security. Every single person should be ashamed of themselves. Their ignorance and negligence not only took away a father, but someone who lit the world up. I say they all pay.

But that's just me.

 

[serendipity]

Mr Duke's updates on today.

@AlanDukeCNN: AEG lawyer just said he plans to call Katherine Jackson to testify Monday although plan could change.

@AlanDukeCNN: Judge ruled Jackson's have enough evidence to send the AEG Live wrongful death case to jury, rejects AEG motion to end trial.

That's it? LOL You gotta love how he doesn't mention the dismissal of Phillips and Gongaware. Thank God we have other reporters covering the case. Lol

Yes you are correct the burden of proof was for the Plantiffs to prove AEG hired the doctor, but it doesn't just end there, the actual hiring is the tip of the iceberg (as I have said before) they also need to show proof of the rest of the lawsuit.

No we haven't seen any signed and dated letter from Michael setting out how the doctor was to be hired, but the doctor was there, are you saying Michaels legal team were working on their own contract? Equally, there has been no testimony to say Michael was opposed to it either. Works both ways.

I have no idea which way the jury will decide on the contract.

Yes, if I remember correctly MJ signed Thome's contract and some could say this was also a conflict, but he signed it. So we don't know if he would've been opposed to Murray's contract.

 

[Petrarose]

This is from the tweets:

Judge wrote: "Substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that (AEG) knew or should have known. that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to (Jackson)." : "Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that (AEG's) conduct was a substantial factor in causing (Jackson’s) death"

Okay should we list the evidence that shows AEG knew or should have known Muarry presented a risk.

Should we list the evidence about AEG's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Michael death.


I knew Putnam did the wrong thing in bringing in all that drug testimony which the plaintiffs did not introduce, because he wanted to reduce damages and show a pattern. Too much overkill.

 

[Petrarose]

Here is the same thing from the judge in more detail:

"A jury may logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because Dr. Murray, who was adversely affected by a conflict of interest created by his contractual arrangement with AEG, treated a deteriorating insomniac who was not ready to perform, causing Dr. Murray to make bad medical decisions that caused (Jackson's) death," the judge wrote.

"The timing of when Dr. Murray ordered propofol is a matter of factual dispute (as to whether that means Dr. Murray used it prior to AEG's retention of him)," the judge wrote. "The court finds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Murray's treatment of decedent was connected to Murray's employment by AEG. Therefore defendants' motion for nonsuit is denied."


So for 1st paragraph judge is saying because of conflict of interest..... caused Muarry to make bad medical decisions. Is this judge for real? The conflict caused Muarry to not monitor Michael and caused his death. I thought both AEG and Muarry's interests were aligned in that Muarry needed Micahel alive to get paid, and AEG needed Michael alive to work. What AEG want Muarry wants, so where is the conflict.

So for the 2nd paragraph she is saying it does not matter if Muarry used the prof before AEG retained him, because there is evidence that Muarry's treatment was connected to AEG hiring him?
Does anyone remember when Muarry began going to the house for the night & when Michael gave Muarry's name to AEG.

I don't understand how a jury will go with what this judge is saying because she gives the person who brought in Muarry no responsibility.

Ivy can I have back again all the legal points that go with negligent hiring--you know what it entails.

I just find that since the judge made her comments before the case started about the rolling stones, etc., that she already made a decision that Katherine was right. Her language shows that AEG hired Muarry.

 

[ivy]

jury doesn't need to go with what the judge is saying. judge is just considering possibilities. a judge doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong, it's the job of a jury.

this motion of nonsuit requires that jacksons did not meet burden of proof to prove their claims. judge could have only dismissed it if she thought there was no way to prove the claims. I gave the example of Sam Lufti and Britney Spears, he claimed she hired him as a manager and supposed to give him a percentage of his earnings. During trial he also mentioned her mental / drug problems. Judge dismissed the case mid trial / granted non-motion because a) Lufti could not provide a contract of employment and b) Britney's mental state made her incompetent to consent to any type of agreement. In other words legally there was no possibility of a valid and binding contract ( as she wasn't mentally competent at that time) and therefore there was no question for the jury.

In this instance the judge has long thought that there is legal basis for the jury to determine who hired Murray and whether the hiring was negligent. Today she decided that Jacksons showed enough evidence for the jury to determine this question. She thinks it's a possibility that jury can decide that AEG created a conflict of interest, AEG knew or should have known and so on. It doesn't mean that's how the jury will decide, it's just that judge thinks that's a possibility.

As for Phillips and Gongaware there's nothing to suggest that they acted on an individual basis. It's not like they came up with the idea of hiring a doctor or paid it from their own pockets. Anything they did - including negotiations and so on - were due to their positions at AEG and TII tour. So they were acting as AEG's agents and that makes AEG responsible for their actions. They don't have personal liability.

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy can I have back the legal points that go with negligent hiring--you know what it entails.

Can anyone speculate what AEG wants to ask Katherine on Monday?

 

[ivy]

^^

you mean the jury instructions?

 

[8701girl]

Whats this i hear the judge is thinking of dismissing this case?????

 

[Petrarose]

^^

you mean the jury instructions?

No you had some information on the legal definition of Negligent hiring. That is, what it involves which helps look at what AEG has to show.

8701 No the judge says the case will continue and go to jury.

 

[8701girl]

No the judge says the case will continue and go to jury.]

I read on the justice4mj facebook page that the judge was gonna dismiss the case and i was wtf

 

[qbee]

Whats this i hear the judge is thinking of dismissing this case?????

not quite - Who is saying that?

I read on the justice4mj facebook page that the judge was gonna dismiss the case and i was wtf

You read it wrong. justice4mj FB didn't state the case was being dismissed. The case is still ongoing. They just dismissed claims against individual persons (Phillips and Gongaware) and left it against the AEG company.

A judge on Monday dismissed two executives from a negligence lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson's mother and allowed the case to proceed against AEG Live LLC, the promoter of his planned comeback concerts. Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos said lawyers for Katherine Jackson hadn't shown enough evidence that Randy Phillips, CEO of AEG Live LLC, and promoter Paul Gongaware were responsible for the death of the pop star.

The judge, however, ruled that jurors should decide whether AEG Live hired Conrad Murray, the former cardiologist convicted of giving Michael Jackson a lethal overdose of anesthetic in June 2009. AEG Live denies any wrongdoing.

The ruling will simplify the case for jurors, who could begin deliberations before the end of the month.

As for Phillips and Gongaware there's nothing to suggest that they acted on an individual basis. It's not like they came up with the idea of hiring a doctor or paid it from their own pockets. Anything they did - including negotiations and so on - were due to their positions at AEG and TII tour. So they were acting as AEG's agents and that makes AEG responsible for their actions. They don't have personal liability.

 

[8701girl]

not quite - Who is saying that?


You read wrong. they didn't state the case was being dismissed.

The case is still ongoing. They just dismissed claims against individual persons (Phillips and Gongaware) and left it against the AEG company.

Ok thanks for explianing qbee

but i thought phillips & gongaware are involed with AEG?

 

[ivy]

No you had some information on the legal definition of Negligent hiring. That is, what it involves which helps look at what AEG has to show.

yeah it's the standard jury instructions


California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

New December 2009
Directions for Use
Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.
It appears that liability may also be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor for the negligent selection of the contractor. (See Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662—663 [109 Cal.Rptr. 269].)
Sources and Authority

“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].)

“Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 [91 Cal.Rptr.3d 864].)

“Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 376].)

“Liability for negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. The tort has developed in California in factual settings where the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.” (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339—1340 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 525].)

“We are cited to no authority, nor have we found any authority basing liability on lack of, or on inadequate, supervision, in the absence of knowledge by the principal that the agent or servant was a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised.” (Noble, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 664.)

“Apparently, [defendant] had no actual knowledge of [the employee]’s past. But the evidence recounted above presents triable issues of material fact regarding whether the [defendant] had reason to believe [the employee] was unfit or whether the [defendant] failed to use reasonable care in investigating [the employee].” (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 843 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 748]; cf. Flores v. AutoZone West Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 373, 384—386 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 178] [employer had no duty to investigate and discover that job applicant had a juvenile delinquency record].)

“A claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining an employee-driver rarely differs in substance from a claim that an employer was negligent in entrusting a vehicle to the employee. Awareness, constructive or actual, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive underlies a claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that person as a driver. (See Judicial Council of Cal. Civ. Jury Instns. (2011) CACI No. 426.) That same awareness underlies a claim for negligent entrustment. (See CACI No. 724.) In a typical case, like this, the two claims are functionally identical.” (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1157 [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 443, 253 P.3d 535].)

“f an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving in the scope of employment, ‘the damages attributable to both employer and employee will be coextensive.’ Thus, when a plaintiff alleges a negligent entrustment or hiring cause of action against the employer and the employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, the universe of defendants who can be held responsible for plaintiff’s damages is reduced by one—the employer—for purposes of apportioning fault under Proposition 51. Consequently, the employer would not be mentioned on the special verdict form. The jury must divide fault for the accident among the listed tortfeasors, and the employer is liable only for whatever share of fault the jury assigns to the employee.” (Diaz, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)

Restatement Third of Agency, section 7.05(1), states: “A principal who conducts an activity through an agent is subject to liability for harm to a third party caused by the agent’s conduct if the harm was caused by the principal’s negligence in selecting, training, retaining, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent.”

http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/426.html


and combined with a variation of this for damages

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

3921. Wrongful Death (Death of an Adult)

If you decide that [name of plaintiff] has proved [his/her] claim against [name of defendant] for the death of [name of decedent], you also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate [name of plaintiff] for the death of [name of decedent]. This compensation is called "damages."

[Name of plaintiff] does not have to prove the exact amount of these damages. However, you must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.

The damages claimed by [name of plaintiff] fall into two categories called economic damages and noneconomic damages. You will be asked to state the two categories of damages separately on the verdict form.

[Name of plaintiff] claims the following economic damages:
1. The financial support, if any, that [name of decedent] would have contributed to the family during either the life expectancy that [name of decedent] had before [his/her] death or the life expectancy of [name of plaintiff], whichever is shorter;
2. The loss of gifts or benefits that [name of plaintiff] would have expected to receive from [name of decedent];
3. Funeral and burial expenses; and
4. The reasonable value of household services that [name of decedent] would have provided.
Your award of any future economic damages must be reduced to present cash value.

[Name of plaintiff] also claims the following noneconomic damages:
1. The loss of [name of decedent]'s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support; [and]
[2. The loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations.]
[2. The loss of [name of decedent]'s training and guidance.]

No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of noneconomic damages. You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense. [Your award for noneconomic damages should not be reduced to present cash value.]

In determining [name of plaintiff]'s loss, do not consider:
1. [Name of plaintiff]'s grief, sorrow, or mental anguish;
2. [Name of decedent]'s pain and suffering; or
3. The poverty or wealth of [name of plaintiff].

In deciding a person's life expectancy, you may consider, among other factors, the average life expectancy of a person of that age, as well as that person's health, habits, activities, lifestyle, and occupation. According to [insert source of information], the average life expectancy of a [insert number]-year-old [male/female] is [insert number] years, and the average life expectancy of a [insert number]-year-old [male/female] is [insert number] years. This published information is evidence of how long a person is likely to live but is not conclusive. Some people live longer and others die sooner.

[In computing these damages, consider the losses suffered by all plaintiffs and return a verdict of a single amount for all plaintiffs. I will divide the amount [among/between] the plaintiffs.]

Directions for Use

One of the life-expectancy subjects in the second sentence of the second-to-last paragraph should be the decedent, and the other should be the plaintiff. This definition is intended to apply to the element of damages pertaining to the financial support that the decedent would have provided to the plaintiff.

Sources and Authority

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 provides: A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons or by the decedent's personal representative on their behalf:
(a) The decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or, if there is no surviving issue of the decedent, the persons, including the surviving spouse or domestic partner, who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession.
(b) Whether or not qualified under subdivision (a), if they were dependent on the decedent, the putative spouse, children of the putative spouse, stepchildren, or parents. As used in this subdivision, 'putative spouse' means the surviving spouse of a void or voidable marriage who is found by the court to have believed in good faith that the marriage to the decedent was valid.
(c) A minor, whether or not qualified under subdivision (a) or (b), if, at the time of the decedent's death, the minor resided for the previous 180 days in the decedent's household and was dependent on the decedent for one-half or more of the minor's support.
(d) This section applies to any cause of action arising on or after January 1, 1993.
(e) The addition of this section by Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 1992 was not intended to adversely affect the standing of any party having standing under prior law, and the standing of parties governed by that version of this section as added by Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 1992 shall be the same as specified herein as amended by Chapter 563 of the Statutes of 1996.
(f) For the purpose of this section, "domestic partner" has the meaning provided in Section 297 of the Family Code.
Code of Civil Procedure section 377.61 provides: "In an action under this article, damages may be awarded that, under all the circumstances of the case, may be just, but may not include damages recoverable under Section 377.34. The court shall determine the respective rights in an award of the persons entitled to assert the cause of action."

"A cause of action for wrongful death is purely statutory in nature, and therefore 'exists only so far and in favor of such person as the legislative power may declare.' " (Barrett v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184 [272 Cal.Rptr. 304], internal citations omitted.)

"There are three distinct public policy considerations involved in the legislative creation of a cause of action for wrongful death: '(1) compensation for survivors, (2) deterrence of conduct and (3) limitation, or lack thereof, upon the damages recoverable.' " (Barrett, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1185, internal citation omitted.)

"We therefore conclude, on this basis as well, that 'wrongful act' as used in section 377 means any kind of tortious act, including the tortious act of placing defective products into the stream of commerce." (Barrett, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1191.)

"In any action for wrongful death resulting from negligence, the complaint must contain allegations as to all the elements of actionable negligence." (Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 88, 105 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 468], internal citation omitted.)

"Damages for wrongful death are not limited to compensation for losses with 'ascertainable economic value.' Rather, the measure of damages is the value of the benefits the heirs could reasonably expect to receive from the deceased if she had lived." (Allen v. Toledo (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 415, 423 [167 Cal.Rptr. 270], internal citations omitted.)

"The death of a father may also cause a special loss to the children." (Syah v. Johnson (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 534, 547 [55 Cal.Rptr. 741], internal citation omitted.)

"These benefits include the personal services, advice, and training the heirs would have received from the deceased, and the value of her society and companionship. 'The services of children, elderly parents, or nonworking spouses often do not result in measurable net income to the family unit, yet unquestionably the death of such a person represents a substantial "injury" to the family for which just compensation should be paid.' " (Allen, supra, 109 Cal.App.3d at p. 423, internal citations omitted.)

The wrongful death statute "has long allowed the recovery of funeral expenses in California wrongful death actions." (Vander Lind v. Superior Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 358, 364 [194 Cal.Rptr. 209].)

"Where, as here, decedent was a husband and father, a significant element of damages is the loss of financial benefits he was contributing to his family by way of support at the time of his death and that support reasonably expected in the future. The total future lost support must be reduced by appropriate formula to a present lump sum which, when invested to yield the highest rate of return consistent with easonable security, will pay the equivalent of lost future benefits at the times, in the amounts and for the period such future benefits would have been received." (Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 512, 520-521 [196 Cal.Rptr. 82], internal citations omitted.)

"The California statutes and decisions . . . have been interpreted to bar the recovery of punitive damages in a wrongful death action." (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 450 [131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334], internal citation omitted.) There is an exception to this rule for death by felony homicide for which the defendant has been convicted. (Civ. Code, � 3294(d).)

"Punitive damages are awardable to the decedent's estate in an action by the estate representative based on the cause of action the decedent would have had if he or she had survived." (Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 616 [103 Cal.Rptr.2d 492], internal citation omitted.)

"California cases have uniformly held that damages for mental and emotional distress, including grief and sorrow, are not recoverable in a wrongful death action." (Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 59, 72 [137 Cal.Rptr. 863, 562 P.2d 1022], internal citations omitted.)
"[A] simple instruction excluding considerations of grief and sorrow in wrongful death actions will normally suffice." (Krouse, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 69.)

"[T]he competing and conflicting interests of the respective heirs, the difficulty in ascertaining individual shares of lost economic support when dealing with minors, the lack of any reason under most circumstances to apportion the lump-sum award attributable to loss of monetary support where minors are involved, the irrelevance of the heirs' respective interests in that portion of the award pertaining to lost economic support in determining the aggregate award, and the more efficient nature of court proceedings without a jury, cumulatively establish apportionment by the court, rather than the jury, is consistent with the efficient administration of justice." (Canavin, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at pp. 535-536.)

"[W]here all statutory plaintiffs properly represented by legal counsel waive judicial apportionment, the trial court should instruct the jury to return separate verdicts unless the remaining considerations enumerated above mandate refusal." (Canavin, supra, 148 Cal.App.3d at p. 536.)

"We note that the court instructed the jury that in determining pecuniary loss they should consider inter alia the age, state of health and respective life expectancies of the deceased and each plaintiff but should be concerned only with 'the shorter of the life expectancies, that of one of the plaintiffs or that of the deceased. . . .' This was a correct statement of the law." (Francis v. Sauve (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 102, 120-121 [34 Cal.Rptr. 754], internal citation omitted.)

"It is the shorter expectancy of life that is to be taken into consideration; for example, if, as in the case here, the expectancy of life of the parents is shorter than that of the son, the benefits to be considered are those only which might accrue during the life of the surviving parents." (Parsons v. Easton (1921) 184 Cal. 764, 770-771 [195 P. 419], internal citation omitted.)

"The life expectancy of the deceased is a question of fact for the jury to decide, considering all relevant factors including the deceased's health, lifestyle and occupation. Life expectancy figures from mortality tables are admissible but are not conclusive." (Allen, supra, 109 Cal.App.3d at p. 424, internal citations omitted.)

 

[Tygger]

Yes you are correct the burden of proof was for the Plantiffs to prove AEG hired the doctor, but it doesn't just end there, the actual hiring is the tip of the iceberg (as I have said before) they also need to show proof of the rest of the lawsuit.

No we haven't seen any signed and dated letter from Michael setting out how the doctor was to be hired, but the doctor was there, are you saying Michaels legal team were working on their own contract? Equally, there has been no testimony to say Michael was opposed to it either. Works both ways.

I have no idea which way the jury will decide on the contract.

Let me clarify please: the claim is negligent hiring. I am unsure where this concept originated about Michael preferring the doctor was hired over an advance or vice versa. It does not matter. AEG is responsible for their own actions the same way Michael is. AEG makes the ultimate decision on how their monies are to be spent, not Michael.

I am unsure where you read I said Michael's legal team was working on their own contract. The doctor was there because he expected payment for his nightly services and the contract he signed would have secured that. When Michael signed the contract for Tohme to work for Michael and AEG it was a conflict of interest. It does not necessarily mean Michael was fine with it as Phillips (foolishly) said. It most likely means he signed it without a legal representative looking over it.

It would be a good exercise to tie testimony/evidence to the claim above and see if the plaintiffs have shown enough evidence to support the claim or the defense has been successful defending themselves against the claim.

Question please: does anyone have information regarding these two items in Duke's article:

A decision will be made on the need for more testimony from Katherine Jackson after the judge rules on several issues regarding possible damages on Wednesday, Putnam said.

A Jackson lawyer downplayed the significance of the dismissal of the two men as defendants, saying the plaintiffs previously offered to drop them from the case but AEG Live lawyers refused.

 

[gerryevans]

That's it? LOL You gotta love how he doesn't mention the dismissal of Phillips and Gongaware. Thank God we have other reporters covering the case. Lol

He really is hilarious.

No matter how this is spun by plaintiffs or Duke, this is a blow to the Jackson case.

I wonder how this actually impacts the jurors' thinking about the case as a whole.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger

Let me clarify please: the claim is negligent hiring. I am unsure where this concept originated about Michael preferring the doctor was hired over an advance or vice versa. It does not matter. AEG is responsible for their own actions the same way Michael is. AEG makes the ultimate decision on how their monies are to be spent, not Michael.

Yes.... As I said the nuts and bolts of any hiring is just the tip of the iceberg. Tbh I think I expect the jury to find that AEG intended to hire Murray, on Michaels wishes ...... But as for the rest of the claim, idk how they will view it.

I am unsure where you read I said Michael's legal team was working on their own contract. The doctor was there because he expected payment for his nightly services and the contract he signed would have secured that. When Michael signed the contract for Tohme to work for Michael and AEG it was a conflict of interest. It does not necessarily mean Michael was fine with it as Phillips (foolishly) said. It most likely means he signed it without a legal representative looking over it.

I didn't say that you said that. For me it would be common sense that Michael was aware AEG was taking care of everything, otherwise his own legal team would have been busier. One would think that after a lifetime in this business and endless lawsuits that Michael would have more about him to know not to sign anything without representation.

It would be a good exercise to tie testimony/evidence to the claim above and see if the plaintiffs have shown enough evidence to support the claim or the defense has been successful defending themselves against the claim.

This would be a good exercise, I wonder if we would agree? Lol - It would need a thread of its own for sure.

 

[LastTear]

He really is hilarious.

No matter how this is spun by plaintiffs or Duke, this is a blow to the Jackson case.

I wonder how this actually impacts the jurors' thinking about the case as a whole.

I don't know how AD can call himself a journalist.

Is it a big blow though? I'm guessing both their testimonies remain because they were still working as representatives of AEG. The burden of whether they knew or should have known in my mind would still remain with RP & PG but only as representatives and not as individuals.

 

[wendijane]

Thanks for all your work and effort of this thread everyone This is a long post people forgive me, and it's just my opinion here, dont you slate me for that.You can skip this, if you want.
But just imagine if there was a man nearing the age of 50 and he was sick,
like I mean really, really, sick but this work place urged him to work anyway with no time to plan and that man is uneasy about that place values anyway .
Come on people,Thats unethical - and it's unheard of here in England.
Elsewhere ?
I believe the same situation would apply to michael if this were all or part of the case.

I really listened to Prince when he said his dad started to begin crying..
cause Michael "just wished he had more time for rehearsals,"
You see,? it's the time thing there and It could mean that greedy and corrupt company pushed Michael to his absolutle limits.
Everything could have been rushed,Poorly conducted thought out, possibly forced,Possibly aggressive people working with a possible sick man.Just for the money making.Using Michael for the quick moneymaking.
Take it or leave it. I honestly believe Michael was sick, I believe he depended and relied on trusted doctors to help him get through. He needed trusted doctors and NOT a charlatan like Murray, let alone being pushed to work.

*I am sick really, I need my time like I used to have... I was thinking of the time when work wasn't an issue, I actually began crying..*
Hmmm.Could you just imagine something like that? and what kind of pressure that would bring to a man? any man!
And indeed if Michael was sick/suffering in silence, well then that's even worse.
When you go to work and they ask you to do overtime that's rotten in itself if you are not feeling not up to it/ and or / if you are simply not ready.
Time -That's the thing.
..And I really believe with those of you that true terrible negligance happened here.

I firmly do believe Michael was a very strong soul who knew his own mind though,was under such Imense stress with it all because of the charlatans and all the wrong do-ers around him and who he was forced to deal with every waking day. I also believe he was a man who wanted to make everyone happy and have peace within his life, and I really firmly believe AEG are in the wrong for so many reasons and I'm going to stand up with the rest of those of you who nodd at this,Who might have the same opinion about this,Who Understand and agree that AEG should be taken down because they showed they had a firm hand in Michael Jackson's preventable death with time pushing and appaling neglect and poor health check/ Poor to ill- run even to Illegal- Work ethic's
This involves attitude, behavior, respect, communication, and interaction how one gets along with others. Work ethics demonstrate many things about whom and how a person is.
So,Personaly, I don't like the way you, Randy P control your ship with what seems to be a very stern and aggressive, unruly fist. So, I am calling you out on this. I have a deep rooted repugnance for You and your so called professional ways.

..AEG are just a dirty corrupt corporation to me. Even if Michael was saying he was fine to do this tour, AEG should done it right. AEG You should have done the right thing by Michael, Safty first. Proper checks.
Yes I know, Michael was not a child, We all know he had his pride and he had his dignity. I strongly believe He was not a weak man but maybe he was a sick man. I believe AEG should have been honest and given more thought into what was actually suggested and given more structure and observation to time.

I believe AEG simply didn't care one bit about Michael's wellbeing nor his welfare. A proper, good competent doctor could have said *no tour Mr jackson. not yet,* from the start.
I believe AEG took pure advantage of the situation and demonstrated complete neglect and excercised Complete agressive control. Making AEG a true malpractice in every way, leading to Michael Jackson's very early and honestly, very preventable death

 

[Tygger]

I do not believe Phillips/Gongaware removal as defendants is a blow to the plaintiffs' case. The judge's reasons against dismissal verify that.

@Tygger

Yes.... As I said the nuts and bolts of any hiring is just the tip of the iceberg. Tbh I think I expect the jury to find that AEG intended to hire Murray, on Michaels wishes ...... But as for the rest of the claim, idk how they will view it.

That is the point Last Tear. Even if Michael begged AEG to hire the doctor for him, AEG is responsible for their own actions and they created their own liability by doing so. AEG controlled how they would respond in that situation and they decided not to advance the monies. There is no opposite evidence to that.

Even if Michael read every contract and was well versed with contract law, he showed he was human and indeed fallible by signing a conflicted interest contract between himself, AEG, and Tohme.

Again, it would be a great exercise and I would be interested in reading other's results. The jurors will have to do the same.

 

[Big Apple2]

I do not believe Phillips/Gongaware removal as defendants is a blow to the plaintiffs' case. The judge's reasons against dismissal verify that.

In my opinion, Mother's side made a HUGE deal about Phillips and Gongaware's so-called participation in the death of Michael Jackson (along with the smoking gun emails), if it weren't important, they wouldn't have added their names from jumpstreet.

Aside from that BLOW, in my opinion, this case has been GUTTED, starting from before it even got into the courtroom.

I mean, how much fat has the Judge cut from this case since it was first filed?

Wasn't Mr. Ortega also cut from this case in the very, very beginning? Along with some other claims. If I recall correctly, the answer is yes.

 

[Tygger]

Wasn't Mr. Ortega also cut from this case in the very, very beginning? Along with some other claims. If I recall correctly, the answer is yes.

Exactly Ortega was! If what Duke said is true, i.e., the plaintiffs sought to remove Phillips/Gongaware and the defense did not allow it, then this hollow victory for the defense was orchestrated to deflect from the plaintiffs' victory of a rejected dismissal. The judge's comments on the rejected dismissal is extremely favorable for the plaintiffs. However, a jury will decide if they agree with her view and the plaintiffs.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, If it was me deciding this fate I think I would find AEG hired Murray but jointly with Michael. I still feel that the negligence part lies with Murray, I don't really see AEG as acting negligently (other than stupidly putting their name on the draft contract).

ETA What did Duke say? That the Plantiffs actually sought to remove P & G ?

 

[Tygger]

@Tygger, If it was me deciding this fate I think I would find AEG hired Murray but jointly with Michael. I still feel that the negligence part lies with Murray, I don't really see AEG as acting negligently (other than stupidly putting their name on the draft contract).

ETA What did Duke say? That the Plantiffs actually sought to remove P & G ?

Last Tear, if we were the jurors, we would have to stay in the deliberation room with you. laughs

The claim is negligent hiring and we only have the one contract the doctor signed. I do not see Michael as anything but the patient on that contract. If we were jurors, you would show where in the contract you felt Michael was an employer and then we would all have to review that and see if we saw him as an employer as well. Those jurors who see negligence (like myself) may discuss how it is negligent to hire doctor without vetting him to ensure he can perform the duties of the job and point to the claim as support.

This is what Duke said:

A Jackson lawyer downplayed the significance of the dismissal of the two men as defendants, saying the plaintiffs previously offered to drop them from the case but AEG Live lawyers refused.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, LOL -you got that right. Could you imagine you and I serving on this jury together, I wonder which one of us would crack first.

Not so surprisingly I see the contract slightly differently, if Michael had to sign it then he was more than simply the patient.

Thanks for the Duke quote, I think I was trying to grasp exactly what the dismissal meant that it didn't register.

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy thanks for the instructions. Now about number 1.

1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;

Doesn't Muarry have 2 different jobs to perform depending on who hired him? If AEG hired Muarry, the job he was to do was to give Michael general medical care, & if Michael hired Muarry the job he had to do was to give him prof. Wasn't Muarry fit to do the general medical care part? Will each side have to show the work Muarry had to perform under his contract? Then, if Muarry goes and does a task that is not in the job descriptions of his contract that AEG expected of him, can AEG still be held accountable?

To me, Muarry was fit to perform the job according to the contract. However, he did something that was not in his contract, at the request of Michael. He was not qualified to do this, so he should be the one to be blamed.

 

[#MJforever57]

This is from the tweets:

Judge wrote: "Substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that (AEG) knew or should have known. that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to (Jackson)." : "Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that (AEG's) conduct was a substantial factor in causing (Jackson’s) death"

Okay should we list the evidence that shows AEG knew or should have known Muarry presented a risk.

Should we list the evidence about AEG's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Michael death.


I knew Putnam did the wrong thing in bringing in all that drug testimony which the plaintiffs did not introduce, because he wanted to reduce damages and show a pattern. Too much overkill.

I agree with you to much and it just may cause them.