IN - Lauren Spierer, 20, Bloomington, 03 June 2011 #30

[Jupiter812]

Below is more about "duty of care" in Lauren's case from a law professor as published in the Indy Star a few days ago. Once again, I SMH at how the boys have everything covered. But did they on Day One? We didn't hear about JR's role in this until several days after she was reported missing. Surely JR and MB received legal advice during that timeframe.

The first thing I heard about LE's interviews with the boys is LE believed the boys kicked her to the curb. So either the boys waited until later to give their caring stories or they gave it right away but LE didn't believe them.


"Beth’s attempt to have Lauren Spierer sleep on his couch and Rosenbaum’s attempt to call friends to take her home could show they took legal responsibility, said Don Gjerdingen, another IU Maurer School of Law professor.

“It doesn’t mean there’s a legal obligation to do it in the first place,” he said. “But if you decide to do it, it has to be done.”

It’s not unlike recent cases, locally and across the country, that examine fraternities’ responsibilities for their members’ actions, or party hosts’ responsibilities of guests. The legal term is “owing a duty of care.”

But it’s a several-step process. Should the lawsuit be heard, attorneys will need to prove the men took on the duty but failed to uphold it, with their actions putting Spierer in danger.

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...Spierer-s-parents-keeps-daughter-s-case-alive

 

[Jupiter812]

Looks like I'm making up for lost time not posting in a long time...! Two things I want to say:

* By his own admission, JR knew Lauren required care else he would not have called friends in an attempt to come get her. By allowing her to leave he failed to fulfill the duty of care.

* Ironically, ZO, by punching CR, may have saved his arse.

 

[sammi89]

I also wanted to thank AbbeyR for an excellent summary.

To add, I've mentioned this case before but I finally looked it up in my book: Farwell v. Keaton. This case might be especially useful because the whole focus is on aborted rescue; i.e., once someone starts to assist, you are generally considered to have taken on a duty of care. Beyond the general issue, it also involves friends on a "social venture" who consume alcohol and one ends up harmed physically, so it might be worth looking into just because some of the fact pattern is somewhat similar. The dissent is also worth taking a look at too, if you look it up.

General facts: two friends, S & F, were waiting for another friend to finish work. While waiting, they drank some beer and attempted to talk to some girls. The girls complained to some of their friends, 6 guys, and these 6 guys then chased down S & F. S escaped, F did not and was severely beaten. S applied ice to F, drove him around for a few hours, and then drove him to his grandparents. He tried to rouse him and, when unable to do so, S left F in the car in the driveway, but did not alert the grandparents. The grandparents found F the next day and took him to the hospital, but he died 3 days later.

Quotes from the opinion:
"The existence of a duty is ordinarily a question of law. HOWEVER, there are factual circumstances which give rise to a duty. The existence of those facts MUST be determined by a JURY."

"If the defendant does attempt to aid him, and takes charge and control of the situation, he is regarded as entering voluntarily into a relation which is attended with responsibility. Such a defendant will then be liable for a failure to use reasonable care for the protection of the plaintiff's interests. When performance clearly has begun, there is no doubt that there is a duty of care."

"F & S were companions on a social venture. Implicit in such a common undertaking is the understanding that one will render assistance to the other when he is in peril if he can do so without endangering himself."

"S knew or should have known when he left F, who was badly beaten and unconscious, in the backseat of his car that no one would find him before morning. Under these circumstances, to say that S had no duty to obtain medical assistance or at least notify someone of F's condition and whereabouts would be "shocking to humanitarian considerations" and fly in the face of "the commonly accepted code of social conduct.'"

"F & S were companions engaged in a common undertaking; there was a special relationship between the parties. Because S knew or should have known of the peril F was in and could render assistance without endangering himself, he had an affirmative duty to come to F's aid."


If you do a Google search for "Farwell v. Keaton case brief" you'll find several resources that analyze the case too. I believe that generally, you might be found liable too if you make a situation worse by showing others you were going to be the savior.

CR - I think most people have already pointed out all the arguments against him. I would just add that several people tried to intervene to help LS and he declined all offers, claiming he had it under control --- definitely made the situation worse by showing others he would take care of LS and then failing to do so.
MB - He agreed to assist LS after putting CR to bed. Additionally, same argument would probably apply. He arguably made the situation worse by showing CR he would take care of LS and then failing to do so (although he can still argue that he didn't fail because he took her to JR's!)
JR - same stuff everyone has already mentioned.

Finally, all could have assisted without endangering themselves. They all seem to have admitted in some form to knowing she was in bad shape, or should have known based on what other witnesses have said/video evidence.

Additionally, sometimes arguments can be made about special relationships alone creating a duty. Obviously this case used "social companions" but I actually think that's not one of the "special relationships" the court usually recognizes in this area. With LS, I think there's enough of them causing the hazard and/or attempting to assist that they won't have to rely on a "special relationship" anyway.

 

[imkeylime]

Looks like I'm making up for lost time not posting in a long time...! Two things I want to say:

* By his own admission, JR knew Lauren required care else he would not have called friends in an attempt to come get her. By allowing her to leave he failed to fulfill the duty of care.

* Ironically, ZO, by punching CR, may have saved his arse.

I realize I've said this before, but it just makes me crazy. So he called friends to come get her, but he couldn't be bothered to walk her home? Were said friends supposed to pick her up in a car vs. walk over? If walk over, what was stopping JR from walking her home instead? He, too, was supposedly a friend. Could he himself not walk that night?

If he was requesting they pick her up in a car, wouldn't that imply something, i.e., that she herself couldn't walk home? I can't seem to reconcile this part of JR's story with him letting her leave.

 

[Jupiter812]

I realize I've said this before, but it just makes me crazy. So he called friends to come get her, but he couldn't be bothered to walk her home? Were said friends supposed to pick her up in a car vs. walk over? If walk over, what was stopping JR from walking her home instead? He, too, was supposedly a friend. Could he himself not walk that night?

If he was requesting they pick her up in a car, wouldn't that imply something, i.e., that she herself couldn't walk home? I can't seem to reconcile this part of JR's story with him letting her leave.

Exactly. I recall reading somewhere that he told LE he was in his sweats and "getting ready for bed" when she arrived early that morning. I'd like to know just what does a college dude's routine consist of when he gets ready for bed after 12 hours of partying?

Point being: If he was able to perform said routine surely he could have walked her three blocks.

 

[sammi89]

If true, it is so odd that JR would mention being in his sweats. I'm not sure if it was meant to be something like he didn't feel presentable enough to be walking in public, but that's bizarre. So many college students go to class in their sweats and it was so late that I hardly think anyone would be worried about being judged because they were wearing sweats. It just seems like another (lame) excuse.

 

[akh]

* Ironically, ZO, by punching CR, may have saved his arse.

Sadly, and even more ironic (if we know the truth about the confrontation), if ZO hadn't punched CR and left them alone, would they have went to LS' apartment and none of the rest of this happens? Or at least happens in a different situation where help could be readily available, no potential for stalking or kidnapping, and everything (comings and goings) on video?

 

[imkeylime]

Exactly. I recall reading somewhere that he told LE he was in his sweats and "getting ready for bed" when she arrived early that morning. I'd like to know just what does a college dude's routine consist of when he gets ready for bed after 12 hours of partying?

Point being: If he was able to perform said routine surely he could have walked her three blocks.

You know, if we'd heard even an inkling of it, I might think that JR had a female guest and didn't appreciate being interrupted. I know of one musician (Tim Buckley) who died under such circumstances (snorting drugs after his friend told him to leave because he had a companion). But nothing we've heard points toward that, either.

 

[Jupiter812]

If true, it is so odd that JR would mention being in his sweats. I'm not sure if it was meant to be something like he didn't feel presentable enough to be walking in public, but that's bizarre. So many college students go to class in their sweats and it was so late that I hardly think anyone would be worried about being judged because they were wearing sweats. It just seems like another (lame) excuse.

Unless it was specifically in answer to a question such as "What were you wearing when she arrived?" I figure he probably volunteered the detail to impress upon them his innocence--figuratively and literally. And to paint a picture that everything was fine and in order until she arrived.

 

[akh]

I realize I've said this before, but it just makes me crazy. So he called friends to come get her, but he couldn't be bothered to walk her home? Were said friends supposed to pick her up in a car vs. walk over? If walk over, what was stopping JR from walking her home instead? He, too, was supposedly a friend. Could he himself not walk that night?

If he was requesting they pick her up in a car, wouldn't that imply something, i.e., that she herself couldn't walk home? I can't seem to reconcile this part of JR's story with him letting her leave.

I might miss my guess but it wouldn't surprise me if the parents are alleging JR made the calls even though (allegedly) he said LS made the calls. It strengthens their case to say JR was calling for her versus she was able to call herself.

 

[Jupiter812]

Sadly, and even more ironic (if we know the truth about the confrontation), if ZO hadn't punched CR and left them alone, would they have went to LS' apartment and none of the rest of this happens? Or at least happens in a different situation where help could be readily available, no potential for stalking or kidnapping, and everything (comings and goings) on video?

Indeed. ZO's actions threw everything into a different orbit that night, inexorably changing many people's lives forever.

This is not to blame him--I'm just looking at it from a dramatic, philosophical perspective. The punch was the pivot.

Why no one from that circle stepped in to help her remains unknown.

 

[Jupiter812]

You know, if we'd heard even an inkling of it, I might think that JR had a female guest and didn't appreciate being interrupted. I know of one musician (Tim Buckley) who died under such circumstances (snorting drugs after his friend told him to leave because he had a companion). But nothing we've heard points toward that, either.

I read recently that he had "two, non-student guests." I doubt it was two females so either two guys or a guy/gal.

 

[AbbeyR]

Looks like I'm making up for lost time not posting in a long time...!

Good! Glad you're back!

 

[imkeylime]

I might miss my guess but it wouldn't surprise me if the parents are alleging JR made the calls even though (allegedly) he said LS made the calls. It strengthens their case to say JR was calling for her versus she was able to call herself.

I can see that happening. But no matter how you spin it, based on the scenarios we've heard, JR's actions make little sense, IMO. Say she did, hypothetically, makes two calls looking for her phone. Why would she do that at 4 in the morning? Because she wanted a phone to have walking home? Because she wanted to call JW? In either case, JR could have lent her his phone.

 

[imkeylime]

We don't have any activity from the time MB takes her to JR's (let's say 3:15-ish) to the time JR says he called friends to come get her which is 4:15. He says she walked away at 4:30.

Thanks, I'll have to have another look at the filing.

Interesting that MB's storyline is the one that has changed the most in the past two years.

It will be interesting to hear MB's official story. Pardon the cliche, but he could have been thrown into a hornet's nest or been part of it. It does sound like he saw and acknowledged LS' condition. OTOH, he also saw CR's condition. I have to wonder if CR was "amnesiac" immediately upon returning to 5N or woke up with said condition. MB might know the answer to that, too.

 

[hoosierleigh]

It will be interesting to hear MB's official story. Pardon the cliche, but he could have been thrown into a hornet's nest or been part of it. It does sound like he saw and acknowledged LS' condition. OTOH, he also saw CR's condition. I have to wonder if CR was "amnesiac" immediately upon returning to 5N or woke up with said condition. MB might know the answer to that, too.

I think that MB was pulled into the civil suit to spill his guts - e.g., that if he spills his guts, the suit could be dropped against him. He has the least responsibility in the scenario (as we know it), IMO, and is the weak link of the 3 as far as keeping his mouth shut (appears to have the least to lose by speaking out).

I think MB's inclusion is purely strategic on the Spierers' part.

 

[AbbeyR]

Farwell v. Keaton. Quotes from the opinion:
"The existence of a duty is ordinarily a question of law. HOWEVER, there are factual circumstances which give rise to a duty. The existence of those facts MUST be determined by a JURY."

"If the defendant does attempt to aid him, and takes charge and control of the situation, he is regarded as entering voluntarily into a relation which is attended with responsibility. Such a defendant will then be liable for a failure to use reasonable care for the protection of the plaintiff's interests. When performance clearly has begun, there is no doubt that there is a duty of care."

"F & S were companions on a social venture. Implicit in such a common undertaking is the understanding that one will render assistance to the other when he is in peril if he can do so without endangering himself."

"S knew or should have known when he left F, who was badly beaten and unconscious, in the backseat of his car that no one would find him before morning. Under these circumstances, to say that S had no duty to obtain medical assistance or at least notify someone of F's condition and whereabouts would be "shocking to humanitarian considerations" and fly in the face of "the commonly accepted code of social conduct.'"

"F & S were companions engaged in a common undertaking; there was a special relationship between the parties. Because S knew or should have known of the peril F was in and could render assistance without endangering himself, he had an affirmative duty to come to F's aid." <snipped for space>

Sammi, Thanks for posting about this case. It's a good one to compare.

I think the part about friends being out together (companions on a social venture) totally makes sense. Apart from getting info about Lauren, I hope this case makes people think about how partying responsibly also means taking responsibility for the friends around you.

 

[AbbeyR]

I live in Greenwood, IN...about 50 miles from Bloomington and 15 miles from downtown Indy. Lauren is a year younger than me and I had several friends attending IU when this happened, so this case has been heavily on my mind since Day 1. This is only my second post on WS, so hi everyone! :newhere:

I just recently started reading these threads and I'm on thread 21, working my way up to finally be current. I just wanted to say all of you guys are amazing. I can't even believe the amount of people who have been on here since basically Day 1.

I don't even have a scenario I'm even close to being sure about. Although I will say I don't think JW was involved in her disappearance and I never have. All the other scenarios mentioned seem at least somewhat plausible to me (besides the fleeing to Israel one about 10 threads back...very, very silly IMHO). I choose the OD/disposal theory over the others, as do most of us. I have had my fair share of drug experiences and I definitely believe Xanax played a part in this. You get the guts to do things you would NEVER, EVER do sober if you take enough...and then you will not remember even one piece of it, no matter how coherent you seemed at the time. There are periods of multiple days that I cannot even come close to remembering. Especially true when alcohol is thrown into the mixture. I've never mixed cocaine with alcohol or Xanax, so I can't say much about that, but I find it very possible because I know many people who have regularly mixed two or three of these drugs, as stupid as it may be.

It's just terrifying for me to think about all the ruralness of the surrounding areas...I know searchers have done an outstanding job, but the amount of places she could be is so much. My family goes to Lake Monroe almost every weekend during the summers & I've been to Brown County State Park many, many times and the possibilities at even those two places are vast. The scariest though, IMO, is Morgon/Monroe State Forest. I went there quite a few times back in high school (Stepp Cemetery was a popular place for people to go in high school to freak themselves out...and it surely does the job) and the pitch black darkness, winding roads, etc. is terrifying.

I don't know, no help coming from me...just my two cents. I basically wanted to say it really means a lot to everyone here in Indiana that all of you are still so on top of this case. This is one of the best sites I've visited on the internet, and I hope to be a long term contributing member. Keep up the good work, guys! :clap:

This is such a nice first post. Just wanted to say welcome!! It's great to have people familiar with the area here. And I agree, it is overwhelming to think about all of that space around Bloomington.

 

[elmorejames]

You know, if we'd heard even an inkling of it, I might think that JR had a female guest and didn't appreciate being interrupted. I know of one musician (Tim Buckley) who died under such circumstances (snorting drugs after his friend told him to leave because he had a companion). But nothing we've heard points toward that, either.

Tim Buckley and his son Jeff, amazing musicians gone too early. Jeff could and would have been a star for sure. His album Grace is a classic!

 

[imkeylime]

Tim Buckley and his son Jeff, amazing musicians gone too early. Jeff could and would have been a star for sure. His album Grace is a classic!

OT, but Jeff Buckley is my favorite musician. I love Grace, Live at Sine, and Sketches, in that order. Glad you know him, too.

How Tim died was tragic (and Jeff, of course). I'd hope JR wouldn't kick LS out because one of his guests was female and he was busy. Plus, I'm not sure LS could have stumbled out, at that point ...