Ok, just to make sure I get it : meaning that if Murray is considered hired, AEG could not terminate him. So my example would be to decide between hiring / retaining, which is quite close I guess.
So in who hired Murray /retained him (Michael or AEG or both).
I'm saying how could you "fire" someone if you didn't even sign the contract to "hire" them? also you need to check the contract to see who can do the firing and for what reason. so to me retention part is confusing. retention by definition requires you to keep an incompetent employer - such as still employing the electrician who keeps having accidents. so whether murray was hired or not, who and how could he be fired and if his incompetence was known or not is questions for the jury.
But, IMO, they had ways to know that Murray was not doing a good job = Michael's declining health. Anyway that's what they both argue. jacksons are giving plenty of examples, AEG are downplaying them, including with their own witnesses.
as for his incompetence you argue that they should known it based on Michael's health but don't forget the Klein factor. They suspected Klein, they saw Michael with slurred speech after Klein. What if they thought whatever was going on was Klein's doing and not Murray? So did they know Murray was incompetent? Or as Phillips said, they trusted and believed Murray?
In this instance Murray is not the only possibility - going back and not knowing what we know now.
Ok, I see , but it doesn't seem to me that's the way they are doing it. The Jacksons are including all those red flags from murray's "work" with michael, not only "past" issues, and AEG, in spite of Punam saying to the media it's irrelevant, is doing the same thing, and the judge says nothing.
I think they are arguing the retaining part, which is not very different from hiring, and is not included in the above.
they can argue the retaining part but as I said it's not as clear cut or as easy as it seems.
Would a conflict of interest (Murray's contract terminated if the tour was cancelled+ supposed pressures on Murray) fall under "supervision" ? Murray being a doctor, there shouldn't be any conflict of interest. So, not from Murray's point of view, but from AEG's point of view (I hope i'm clear), meaning they shouldn't have done the contract this way, they created "dangerous" work conditions for Murray ?
I wouldn't consider it as a supervision but initial reason of "reasonably should have concluded part". If they knew Murray had debt issues and needed the money they could have - perhaps- concluded that Murray's interest was the tour continuing and then they could have concluded that he would act to make sure that the concerts happened. However doctors are different as they are taking an oath most people would expect them to do what is best for the patient - such as say "no he can't perform" and not think about themselves. So that brings us to the question of is this foreseeable?
Should we suspect that every doctor with debts will be willing "drug pushers"? Or can we trust the doctors, policeman, fireman, paramedics - the people who take an oath to protect and serve the people - do the right thing and put people before their own interests?
Gonaware's testimony stating that Michael did not have a tour doctor for the History tour is key to the 'should have known' issue.
So which is it? Duke is clearly saying Gongaware lied under oath.
Yes Gongaware knew or should have known is a key issue for negligent hiring. He says he wasn't aware of a doctor on History tour. Now it would either mean - Gongaware is lying or he did not know there was a doctor. Now if he didn't know that would go back to AEG's opening statement that Michael was very good at hiding Propofol and no one knew. Even Gongaware did not know.
For example Dr. Ratner could be on tour and giving Michael Propofol. But Gongaware might not be aware that he was a doctor and what he was doing with Michael.
One question, did Mr. Panish mention Debbie Rowe in his opening statements?
Putnam did.
What did the pay Van Halen part mean?
that's the links to the older stories in the middle of the article, when I copied the article the links to other stories were also copied. Don't pay attention to them.
