MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let the discovery begin!

I'm not sure there will be much discovery.

As Karen was not convicted of intentionally killing John with her vehicle (and it sounds like 12 jurors didn't think she did) her auto insurance company will respond and provide her a full defense. (If she'd been adjudicated a murderer, they'd almost certainly deny coverage, but this hasn't happened. Accidents are covered by insurance, murder is not.)

Insurance companies don't give a flip about what's right or wrong and they aren't interested in moral victories. The trial is public record, they'll likely get what they need from the transcripts. They aren't spending any extra money here. The burden of proof is much lower with a civil case, so her carrier will have to assess the odds of a civil jury finding her responsible for John's death. They may want to wait until the next trial is over or they may want to try and settle now or in the near future.

Read is well within her rights to decline insurance coverage and defend the case with her own tort defense attorney. But I think her criminal attorneys will probably advise her to spend her remaining resources on her criminal defense and the let the insurance company do what they will. The civil lawsuit will have no impact on the criminal case.
 
OK so in legal documents we have something called "defined terms". They are usually in quotes.

In this particular document we have Plaintiff defined as Paul, John's Mom and Dad, and his niece. Following along, John's estate is included in the definition of "Plaintiff'.

Go to Item 14 and "Plaintiff" is at the bar. Which of the above listed Plaintiffs would that be? It can't be John's estate, he is already dead.

Petition needs an amendment.
 
<modsnip - quoted post and response snipped>
Who will seek Justice for John Okeefe?
JMO

Certainly not Karen's insurance carrier.

I just don't see her company trying too hard here. Sure, certain witnesses would not want to be deposed or testify at a civil trial, but I really think her carrier will use the the testimony already out there rather than try to re-litigate a still unfinished criminal trial. So probably not a hornet's nest for anyone at the end of the day.

Her carrier has known about this case since a day or two after John died. This lawsuit is not a surprise to them. If they think it's probable or even somewhat possible that a civil jury finds her responsible for John's death, they'll likely go out of their way to try to settle with O'Keefe before a trial is even on the horizon. Believe me, it's not lost on them that 8 or 9 jurors thought she was guilty of accidentally hitting John and taking off. I'd expect a confidential settlement within the next 1 -3 years regardless of what happens with the criminal trial. Just my guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just wondering but IF this makes it to trial, will the photo of JOK's right arm injuries/ aka dog bites/scratches be shown to a jury? Cuz, um those weren't made from a vehicle strike. IMO

Sure. But so far, 9 (8?) jurors weren't convinced and these are the sort of details insurance companies take note of when deciding what to do with a case.

Which is not to say this isn't a risk for Paul O'Keefe. If he has a good offer on the table to resolve the wrongful death suit against Read, does he risk it to a jury who may see those arm injuries and decide they weren't made by an SUV, or does he take the money and run? There is definitely risk for him as well.

Another wild card is the fact that there are dram shop defendants as well. Seeing as there is good amount of testimony that Read did not appear to be intoxicated at either bar, do they settle or do they hold their ground? Especially the Waterfall - do they hold their ground or try to settle? And if they hold their ground, I can see everyone who was in the bars that night being called to testify.

But the fact remains that the vast majority of these types of cases settle short of trial.
 
WHO IS PLAINTIFF? Item 14 begs that question.

In a wrongful death suit, the plaintiff is the decedent (JOK) but the suit belongs to the heirs. In Massachusetts, only the executor or administrator of the deceased's estate can file a wrongful death lawsuit. In this case, it appears POK is the executor and who also filed the suit.

MA: Wrongful Death Law Suit
 
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the fine details of the civil system in this state but, I don’t see this going well for the o’keefe family, I guess I'm biased because when I saw the interview with John’s brother after the trial it was my opinion that the o’keefe family didn’t want justice for John, John’s brother just handwaved all the evidence, everything. The family just wants to punish Karen, and I’m not saying she’s a quote unquote good person but to just blatantly ignore all the evidence and say she did it because I didn’t like how she grieved, making that public statement says a lot to me
 
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the fine details of the civil system in this state but, I don’t see this going well for the o’keefe family, I guess I'm biased because when I saw the interview with John’s brother after the trial it was my opinion that the o’keefe family didn’t want justice for John, John’s brother just handwaved all the evidence, everything. The family just wants to punish Karen, and I’m not saying she’s a quote unquote good person but to just blatantly ignore all the evidence and say she did it because I didn’t like how she grieved, making that public statement says a lot to me
I would also add that altho 8 of the 9 jurors were not convinced she was not at fault, these same jurors were also missing very key pieces of detail about the case
Like how it was the FBI who hired the experts.
So altho I understand that insurance companies are risk averse, and I obvi don't work for one in the claims dept, I am not that sure of a quick settlement unless its for a very "resaonable" amount.
Imo Greed can lead to many unintended consequences for John's family
jmo
 
Definitely the right decision for the O'Keefe family to file a civil suit imo. Not surprised to see a civil suit filed. It's a no brainer, imo. Why wouldn't O'Keefes want to hold a drunk driver accountable for a loved one's demise? Why wouldn't O'Keefe family want to hold any establishment accountable for over serving customer(s)? If customers (drunk driver) was cut off, Officer John O'Keefe would still be alive today, right? He wanted to move on... away from toxic relationship.

Did these (bars) bottom lines mean more to them than peoples' lives? Is there no guidelines?

Much respect for MADD org. Will not forget what they represent and all the work they have done and continue to do.

Matter of opinion, all of it, at this time.
 
Definitely the right decision for the O'Keefe family to file a civil suit imo. Not surprised to see a civil suit filed. It's a no brainer, imo. Why wouldn't O'Keefes want to hold a drunk driver accountable for a loved one's demise? Why wouldn't O'Keefe family want to hold any establishment accountable for over serving customer(s)? If customers (drunk driver) was cut off, Officer John O'Keefe would still be alive today, right? He wanted to move on... away from toxic relationship.

Did these (bars) bottom lines mean more to them than peoples' lives? Is there no guidelines?

Much respect for MADD org. Will not forget what they represent and all the work they have done and continue to do.

Matter of opinion, all of it, at this time.
First the O'Keefes will need to prove she actually hit him with her vehicle. All defendants will be able to use the ARCA reports showing that couldn't have happened. Yes, insurance companies tend to settle when there may be doubt, but if the DA ends up not prosecuting because of his massive problems with the police witnesses or Read is found not guilty on all counts they aren't likely to be successful with this lawsuit.
 
Every state, including Massachusetts, has laws governing wrongful death claims. In my longtime experience as a member of WS, I'd say the "wrongful death claim" has to be one of the most misunderstood lawsuits-- regardless the State or circumstances. To be clear, generally, all elements necessary to support a personal injury lawsuit must be present in a wrongful death claim.

More specifically, to understand how wrongful death lawsuits work, it's important to understand how the State Statute defines “wrongful death,” what types of damages are available, if there are any time limits to file a claim, and “who is permitted to file a wrongful death claim?” (i.e., who has standing).

Standing and Wrongful Death Lawsuit in MA:

Under Massachusetts law, only the administrator or executor of the deceased’s estate has standing to file a wrongful death claim. An executor or administrator has a number of obligations and responsibilities regarding the deceased’s estate, including paying any outstanding debts, ensuring beneficiaries receive their inheritance under the terms of the will, and finalizing the estate’s affairs. In this specific case, I think it's fair to assume that JOK had a will, and that he nominated his brother POK to serve as the executor.

Please take note that pursuant to MA law, given JOK had no surviving spouse, his children will receive the whole of any economic portion of a presumed Wrongful Death award, in equal shares. In other words, JOK's parents and siblings will not benefit from the lawsuit because there are surviving children.

IMO, POK is acting on behalf of the children left behind by filing the wrongful death claim. Right or wrong, this lawsuit will likely involve settlements by the Insurers of the defendants, and not a trial. And as for suing the bars, MA follows a 51% modified comparative negligence rule. How do you blame the bar when the parties are hiding drinks in their coats? Just sayin..

Filing a Wrongful Death Lawsuit in MA:

As stated above, a wrongful death claim must be filed by the executor of the deceased’s estate.

Typically, you could think of a wrongful death claim as a personal injury lawsuit filed on behalf of the deceased (i.e., the plaintiff).

For example, wrongful death could arise from an automotive vehicle accident case, medical malpractice, or a product liability claim. Therefore, all the elements necessary to support a personal injury lawsuit must be present in a wrongful death claim.


Wrongful Death Claims and MA Statute of Limitations:

The executor of the deceased’s estate must file a wrongful death lawsuit within three years of the deceased’s death. If you do not comply with the statute of limitations, the case will likely be dismissed.

Wrongful Death Damages allowed in MA:

A wrongful death claim can arise when one person dies due to the legal fault of another person or entity. Massachusetts law defines “wrongful death” as a death caused by negligence, a “willful, wanton, or reckless act,” or breach of warranty. Negligence can take many forms, such as car accidents, medical malpractice, or defective products.

A wrongful death action seeks to recover damages that the victim could have recovered had they survived the accident.

Here is a summary of the key categories:

  • Loss of financial support — This includes income the deceased would have likely earned in the future, as well as the value of household services they provided, such as child care or home maintenance.
  • Loss of companionship — This encompasses the emotional pain and suffering endured by the beneficiaries due to the loss of companionship, guidance and love from the deceased.
  • Loss of decedent’s society — This compensates for the loss of the deceased’s companionship, protection and enjoyment of life.
  • Medical and funeral expenses — Reimbursement for reasonable medical bills incurred before death and the costs associated with the funeral and burial.
Punitive damages are uncommon in MA:

Punitive damages put the focus on the person or organization that is responsible for the accident or death. They are similar to a fine. The court will impose the damages on the responsible party based on conduct that led to the accident or death. By doing so, the court seeks to deter others from acting the same way. Punitive damages in MA are uncommon--especially if no criminal conviction. Most likely because they are not insurable, MOO.

Massachusetts only allows punitive damages when authorized by state law.

The Massachusetts wrongful death statute allows punitive damages if a wrongful death occurred due to “malicious, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct of the defendant or by gross negligence of the defendant.” To be awarded punitive damages, you will have to prove that someone died because of the conduct described. The minimum award for punitive damages in Massachusetts is $5,000.

What is the Standard of Proof for Punitive Damages?

Most injury victims only have to prove their damages by a preponderance of the evidence. This means they must show that it is more likely than not that the defendant caused their injury and related losses. Attorneys sometimes refer to this as proving your case by 51%.

In most states, punitive damages have a higher standard of proof. To recover these damages, you must prove you deserve them by clear and convincing evidence. This standard is much higher than a preponderance of the evidence but lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases.


Punitive Damages & MA

 
I may surprise some of you by stating that I'm not entirely convinced by the link between the Birchmore and O'Keefe homicides. It's horrific enough to stage a suicide to protect a murderer in blue, it's another thing altogether to frame a potentially innocent person for the crime. As loathe as I am towards some of the characters involved in the MA v Read case, I don't think any of them come close to the alleged depravity of M Farwell.

One thing the two cases have in common though (and I think this is the only opinion I have that is largely agreed by both sides of the argument) is that if the MSP and DA's office had just done their jobs properly in investigating these two terrible homicides, and not messed it up completely (whether through corruption, or incompetence) then an awful lot of pain and misery could have been avoided. The MSP (in this part of MA at least) are so bad, they're making the Feds look like the good guys!

JMO
 
First the O'Keefes will need to prove she actually hit him with her vehicle. All defendants will be able to use the ARCA reports showing that couldn't have happened. Yes, insurance companies tend to settle when there may be doubt, but if the DA ends up not prosecuting because of his massive problems with the police witnesses or Read is found not guilty on all counts they aren't likely to be successful with this lawsuit.
Was JOK actually sober? He allowed KR to drive him, so we might think that she was more in control than he was at that time. If I were KR's attys, I would say contributory negligence. IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
479
Total visitors
631

Forum statistics

Threads
605,751
Messages
18,191,363
Members
233,514
Latest member
erinrebano
Back
Top