4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #81

[Sister Golden Hair]

Jumping off this … are tort claim notice filings required before suing individuals/businesses or is it just when suing governmental entities? And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

I’m thinking back to the early speculation here about potential malfunctioning door/window locks, insufficient exterior lighting, etc.

Prior to being gifted to UI, the house & property were privately owned with a local property management company acting as landlord.

Just wondering & curious, all MOO musings.

We were having WSESP because I was just posting about SoL. Without digging into all of this, IDK, but IMO it still doesn't make sense. They have plenty of time to go through the process if they determine they have a claim, so why do this now?

 

[I'm Nobody]

I think you are right, Bryan is going to love the attention of the book.

Agree 199% @lowes123
IMO BK wants books written about him. FAME. Sad but he will inspire dozens of books, docu-series (Skydance Television already intends to option the rights to the Patterson/Ward book for development as a docu-series), films, Websites, video games and be a subject for generations of armchair detectives, criminology course studies, and law school classes. Many triggering PTSD for his victims.

Insensitive me will be guilty of reading and watching some but NOT if BK was making any money from them.

Happy to see Idaho has a version of Son of Sam, Notoriety for Profit Law
Any profit for crime would go to a victims' fund.

IMO
DISTRIBUTION OF MONEYS RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE COMMISSION OF CRIME.
IDAHO TITLE 19. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. /// CHAPTER 53 COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES

Every person, firm, corporation, partnership, association or other legal entity contracting with any person or the representative or assignee of any person, accused of a crime in this state, with respect to the reenactment of such crime, by way of a movie, book, magazine article, radio or television presentation, live entertainment of any kind, or from the expression of such person’s thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions regarding such crime, shall pay over to the state treasurer any moneys which would otherwise, by terms of such contract, be owing to the person so convicted or his representatives.

Section 19-5301 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

Son of Sam laws (also known as a notoriety-for-profit law) have been criticized as violating the free-speech guarantee First Amendment in some states.

Son of Sam law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chloegirl]

If there is liability, it will be found. Settlements sometimes occur because it is far cheaper to settle and move on than drag this through the court system. There are attorney fees and other expenses that will be through the roof, all while keeping the university and its potential failings in the public eye.

I am amazed at the amount of student loan debt that young adults have. And I see a lot of private loans because the cost of tuition and housing far outweighs what you can get in federal student loans. Granted, it was in state tuition. But college is really expensive. Kids want to get that full campus experience and worry about the debt later, I think. Btw the Fafsa is not fun. I know parents that assume they are getting nothing so they don’t bother to fill it out.

I believe the national average is 25k annually and UI is less than 10k, which is sort of amazing in 2023. It is still expensive and an investment in your future but it's got to be worth the outcome.

 

[TL4S]

Stupid question, but could the tort have anything to do with the University now owning the house and previously saying they were going to demolish it?

 

[Chloegirl]

Stupid question, but could the tort have anything to do with the University now owning the house and previously saying they were going to demolish it?

I do not think that is a stupid question. I think it's likely more a leverage thing with the gag order, house demolishment or a justice backup plan? I can't really say I understand how these things work that's just all IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Jumping off this … are tort claim notice filings required before suing individuals/businesses or is it just when suing governmental entities? And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

I’m thinking back to the early speculation here about potential malfunctioning door/window locks, insufficient exterior lighting, etc.

Prior to being gifted to UI, the house & property were privately owned with a local property management company acting as landlord.

Just wondering & curious, all MOO musings.

Quote:
And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

The city of Moscow filing said the tort claims were being presented in accordance with Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 9, which states that such claims must be filed no more than six months after a claim arose (death of their children) to sue a government entity.

The Goncalves’ claims were filed May 2 and 3, while the Mogens’ were all filed May 11. The stabbings happened Nov. 13, meaning the notices came days shy of the deadline.

Families of 2 Moscow stabbing victims file legal claims against city, police, schools

The claims preserve the families’ rights to sue four government entities in relation to the deaths of their children.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Stupid question, but could the tort have anything to do with the University now owning the house and previously saying they were going to demolish it?

Hard to see what the cause of action would be.

tort

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[10ofRods]

Jumping off this … are tort claim notice filings required before suing individuals/businesses or is it just when suing governmental entities? And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

I’m thinking back to the early speculation here about potential malfunctioning door/window locks, insufficient exterior lighting, etc.

Prior to being gifted to UI, the house & property were privately owned with a local property management company acting as landlord.

Just wondering & curious, all MOO musings.

I think in Idaho it's just public/governmental entities. It's the same in California. There was a wave of this kind of government-protective legislation about 20-25 years ago.

I would think the door locks would go back to the landlord; although if there are city codes involving standards for rentals, all bets off (hadn't thought of that - good catch). Same with the lighting. And the landlord could still be sued regardless of whether there's local code. Presumably, the landlord has insurance. The person or persons who owned it at the time would be liable if such a tort were thought viable in Idaho courts.

Interesting to speculate. Civil suits often help people process grief. I've seen some long, wild ones here in California, for sure.

IMO.

 

[North_Idaho_Nony]

Quote:
And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

The city of Moscow filing said the tort claims were being presented in accordance with Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 9, which states that such claims must be filed no more than six months after a claim arose (death of their children) to sue a government entity.

The Goncalves’ claims were filed May 2 and 3, while the Mogens’ were all filed May 11. The stabbings happened Nov. 13, meaning the notices came days shy of the deadline.

Families of 2 Moscow stabbing victims file legal claims against city, police, schools

The claims preserve the families’ rights to sue four government entities in relation to the deaths of their children.

www.yahoo.com

Yes, thanks & apologies for not being clear: I was specifically interested in time limits for claims against individuals/businesses that aren’t governmental entities.

 

[NCWatcher]

We were having WSESP because I was just posting about SoL. Without digging into all of this, IDK, but IMO it still doesn't make sense. They have plenty of time to go through the process if they determine they have a claim, so why do this now?

I do wonder if the filings are intended to be a kind of threat... As in "you better not mess up or we're coming for you." I agree with @al66pine that the comment from Gray seemed future oriented. And he did have a fair amount to say early on about local LE.

I'm still not clear on possible grounds to sue the university unless some version (IMO perversion) of In Loco Parentis is used as @Sister Golden Hair suggested. Any liability re: the house itself would still rest with the original owner and the rental management company I'd think (not the university as current owner.) But those pockets may not be deep.
JMO

 

[Twistinginthewind]

Tort Action Notice. Atty Gray: "If Something Goes Wrong"

@NCWatcher Thanks for post* and several others you have made on Gray's comment: "if something goes wrong, or was done improperly, then someone is held accountable for that."

I'm interpreting the comment this way (as I think you & some are, at least as one possibility):

"If something goes wrong" = If BK is not convicted of M-1 of the 2 dau's
..................................or if BK does not receive DP or LWOP.

And

something "was done improperly" = e.g., LE's conduct in evd collection. MPD? ISP?
As a result, MM & KG died.

Then
"someone is held accountable for that." = $$$ to parents.

In his first phrase, Gray did NOT use PAST tense, by saying something HAD gone wrong. Despite using present tense, seems to refer to a possible FUTURE event like a trial.


In his "If something goes wrong" phrase, what, other than trial, could Gray have referred to?

Scratching my head on this. imo moo jmo

{eta: minor clarifications}
__________________________
* 4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #81

Good points, @al66pine. I was about to post what Gray specifically said again because it does not imply they are suing or going to sue as has been discussed in the media, IMO, just that they're reserving the right to anytime under an "If - Then" type of scenario over the next 2 years.

The "If" scenarios you speculated on make sense to me and seem to be the most likely.

Another that pops into my head that could potentially develop steam prior to trial is:

If the defense's claim the prosecution is witholding potentially exculpatory evidence is proven to be true, and/or the evidence was there but overlooked by the prosecution, and they get the evidence prior to trial, and it's not flimsy and they think it could exonerate BK, they could stall on going to trial with motions dragging out for months or years while they argue over it and/or try to have charges dismissed.

JMO, IANAL, and don't think it will happen, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility? @PrairieWind please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

IMO, under that "If" scenario the delays went on and on, and the trial kept getting postponed, and the 2 year mark for Gray's window to sue LE(s) and/or other named parties was approaching:

"Then" they may file a lawsuit if that type of delay happened and the 2 families he's representing felt it was unacceptable for whatever reasons. Even if LE did nothing wrong/didn't purposely withold evidence, it could be a perception issue and/or frustration with the process for reasons that we know not of that could possibly trigger a lawsuit (e.g., pain and suffering? miscarriage of justice? Just spitballing).

All MOO and speculation based on following the case and all the bits and pieces that could come into play.

Also, IIRC, @PrairieWind posted about the possibility of the GJ being a tactic to give LE more time to process evidence and/or that the prosecution may not have given "everything" to the defense during previous discovery, which if I'm remembering their posts right, could indicate a crack in the surface of the integrity of the evidence, which wouldn't necessarily exclude exculpatory evidence?

ETA: IMO, a few other considerations or concerns of Gray and the 2 families could be:

The potential Brady issue related to one of the officers working on the investigation.

Potentially the qualifications and/or professional conduct of some personnel working on the case.

For example, in the early days after the murders I think some of the statements supposedly made by the coroner directly to the Goncalves family maybe were perceived as inappropriate.

And the experience and/or training of the LEO chosen to lead the case was maybe questioned, in the media anyway, and the defense did recently request training and resumes, IIRC of the LEOs and the Idaho state lab personnel, but the prosecution argued back it wasn't justified and denied those requests.

Head scratcher indeed, IMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

I do wonder if the filings are intended to be a kind of threat... As in "you better not mess up or we're coming for you." I agree with @al66pine that the comment from Gray seemed future oriented. And he did have a fair amount to say early on about local LE.

I'm still not clear on possible grounds to sue the university unless some version (IMO perversion) of In Loco Parentis is used as @Sister Golden Hair suggested. Any liability re: the house itself would still rest with the original owner and the rental management company I'd think (not the university as current owner.) But those pockets may not be deep.
JMO

You just nailed it. Deep pockets and avoiding the empty chair are two priorities IMO.

I do agree that it seems future-oriented but I don't think it is. I think it's definitely happening. JMO. When I saw the early-on criticism about LE stuff, this is exactly what I thought was being set up. I am cynical and jaded. I also know about getting a statement on record early. I do not think this is a last-minute 'oh we better just in case' thought. But ICBW and I am cynical and jaded.

They still need a cause of action. In Loco was the first one off the top of my head. WSU seems like a gimme.

here are the rules re limitations:
a nice summary by type: Idaho Civil Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw

the full-meal deal: 41 – Idaho State Legislature

Adding this for reference:

Chapter 9 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

"FILING CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR EMPLOYEE — TIME. All claims against the state arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later."

Exactly. and add this:
Per the ID Tort Claims Act:
6-911. Limitation of actions. Every claim against a governmental entity permitted under the provisions of this act or against an employee of a governmental entity shall be forever barred, unless an action is begun within two (2) years after the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later.

 

[al66pine]

Parents. Possible Lawsuit? In Loco Parentis Issues? California Case?

... in loco parentis issues (UofI and there have been some recent cases of that of late -

The Return of In Loco Parentis? - Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose

In loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of a parent”) is a phrase that refers to the legal responsibility of an individual or organization to assume some of the functions and responsibilities of the parent. In higher education, this doctrine was very much alive and well, and […]

www.hmbr.com

...

snipped for focus @Sister Golden Hair
Thanks for post w your comments and links, including article titled "THE RETURN OF IN LOCO PARENTIS?"* from a California law firm website, stating "A California Supreme Court decision issued earlier this month, however, may pave the way for a return of some form or aspects of in loco parentis."

From a quick read there & at LexisNexis Case Brief** (I no longer have access to full LN site), I'm not seeing that case as a "return" to ILP.
Seems more like tort liability issue which may apply to the "special relationship" of employer-employee, than the ILP imposed on higher ed. institutions re campus dangers to students (and [WINK] to protect fragile first year coeds in dorms from frat-boy panty raids in Ye Days of Olde, say, pre-1970s . )

Anyway, Cali. Sup Ct. opn. discussed the {eta: insert Uni's} duty to protect or warn students from foreseeable violence "in curricular activities" in some circumstances and remanded to Ct/Appeals.

These four ID. homicides, which took place on privately owned off-campus property did not occur in context of U of I curricular activities. Imo, not seeing IPL issues in a potential ID tort claim case against U of I, at least not based on the cited CA. case. I did not search ID. statutes or case law, so ICBW, maybe verrry wrong.

Welcoming correction or clarification esp'ly from our legal professionals.
_________________________________________
* The Return of In Loco Parentis? - Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose
** Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis
"Rule
"There is generally no duty to protect others from the conduct of third parties. The special relationship doctrine is an exception to this general rule. Accordingly, as a consequence of the special relationship between colleges and their students, colleges generally owe a duty to use reasonable care to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities."
"Facts
"... School administrators eventually learned of Thompson's delusions and attempted to provide mental health treatment. However, one morning Thompson stabbed fellow student Katherine Rosen during a chemistry lab..."

"Issue:
"Do universities have a duty to use reasonable care to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities?"

"Conclusion
"....held that universities do have a legal duty, under certain circumstances, to protect or warn their students from foreseeable violence in the classroom or during curricular activities..."

 

[NCWatcher]

Quote:
And what would be the time limit on filing those types of civil claims?

The city of Moscow filing said the tort claims were being presented in accordance with Idaho Code Title 6, Chapter 9, which states that such claims must be filed no more than six months after a claim arose (death of their children) to sue a government entity.

The Goncalves’ claims were filed May 2 and 3, while the Mogens’ were all filed May 11. The stabbings happened Nov. 13, meaning the notices came days shy of the deadline.

Families of 2 Moscow stabbing victims file legal claims against city, police, schools

The claims preserve the families’ rights to sue four government entities in relation to the deaths of their children.

www.yahoo.com

Interesting!

Re: Filing deadline

From Section 6-905 – Idaho State Legislature

Bold added by me.

"FILING CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR EMPLOYEE — TIME. All claims against the state arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later."

So the clock doesn't have to start with date of death it sounds like.
JMO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Parents. Possible Lawsuit? In Loco Parentis Issues? California Case?

snipped for focus @Sister Golden Hair
Thanks for post w your comments and links, including article titled "THE RETURN OF IN LOCO PARENTIS?"* from a California law firm website, stating "A California Supreme Court decision issued earlier this month, however, may pave the way for a return of some form or aspects of in loco parentis."

From a quick read there & at LexisNexis Case Brief** (I no longer have access to full LN site), I'm not seeing that case as a "return" to ILP.
Seems more like tort liability issue which may apply to the "special relationship" of employer-employee, than the ILP imposed on higher ed. institutions re campus dangers to students (and [WINK] to protect fragile first year coeds in dorms from frat-boy panty raids in Ye Days of Olde, say, pre-1970s . )

Anyway, Cali. Sup Ct. opn. discussed the {eta: insert Uni's} duty to protect or warn students from foreseeable violence "in curricular activities" in some circumstances and remanded to Ct/Appeals.

These four ID. homicides, which took place on privately owned off-campus property did not occur in context ofq U of I curricular activities. Imo, not seeing IPL issues in a potential ID tort claim case against U of I, at least not based on the cited CA. case. I did not search ID. statutes or case law, so ICBW, maybe verrry wrong.

Welcoming correction or clarification esp'ly from our legal professionals.
_________________________________________
* The Return of In Loco Parentis? - Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose
** Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis
"Rule
"There is generally no duty to protect others from the conduct of third parties. The special relationship doctrine is an exception to this general rule. Accordingly, as a consequence of the special relationship between colleges and their students, colleges generally owe a duty to use reasonable care to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities."
"Facts
"... School administrators eventually learned of Thompson's delusions and attempted to provide mental health treatment. However, one morning Thompson stabbed fellow student Katherine Rosen during a chemistry lab..."

"Issue:
"Do universities have a duty to use reasonable care to protect their students from foreseeable acts of violence in the classroom or during curricular activities?"

"Conclusion
"....held that universities do have a legal duty, under certain circumstances, to protect or warn their students from foreseeable violence in the classroom or during curricular activities..."

I'm not saying it's a reasonable thing. I'm saying that there's a trend and I used the case as an example of where things wander. IMO this could be the direction they'll go. ICBW. I totally disagree with this whole idea, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

[Bogbacal2]

Was looking at Rules of Evidence and happened upon this. (@sgh-have to give you some credit here because in reading one of your posts, I went into a “deep dive” trying to understand Rules of Evidence…thanks for the lesson-unbeknownst to you ). It is from ADA County, Idaho. Note the Trace evidence. Sorry is this has been posted before. I did check. Don’t recall ever seeing it.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Interesting!

Re: Filing deadline

From Section 6-905 – Idaho State Legislature

Bold added by me.

"FILING CLAIMS AGAINST STATE OR EMPLOYEE — TIME. All claims against the state arising under the provisions of this act and all claims against an employee of the state for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the secretary of state within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later."

So the clock doesn't have to start with date of death it sounds like.
JMO

Exactly. and add this:
Per the ID Tort Claims Act:
6-911. Limitation of actions. Every claim against a governmental entity permitted under the provisions of this act or against an employee of a governmental entity shall be forever barred, unless an action is begun within two (2) years after the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever is later.

This is not a JIC filing IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm not saying it's a reasonable thing. I'm saying that there's a trend and I used the case as an example of where things wander. IMO this could be the direction they'll go. ICBW. I totally disagree with this whole idea, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

If you're not in California, you probably don't have to worry about it. Our state legislature is going along with what its constituents (most of them) want. We shall see. We're pretty far down the path already. Not sure how this rolls in Idaho (and of course, no one can file a civil suit in California for a tort that occurred in Idaho).

IMO.

 

[flowershop]

This legal analyst's opinion (see link) is that the media is focused too much on the "standing silent" aspect of BK'S court appearance on Monday . He states that the real power move is the defense' decision to decline to waive the right to a speedy trial.

The legal analyst goes on to say that the defense requested the trial to take place just outside the 6 month "speedy trial" window. The prosecution will have to rush to finish gathering evidence it still requires.

Redirect Notice

 

[al66pine]

I'm not saying it's a reasonable thing. I'm saying that there's a trend and I used the case as an example of where things wander. IMO this could be the direction they'll go. ICBW. I totally disagree with this whole idea, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

@Sister Golden Hair
My apologies. Did not intend to suggest that you thought ILP was a reasonable or a sound basis for parents' tort claim notice against U of I or that ILP is good public policy. My post noted that my comments were based on reading the law firm's webpage about the case and LexisNexis "Case Brief" aka "LexisNexis-Lite."

You dive in deep, and your posts reflect it --- in a good way.
Tracking and analysis --- like yours --- of warrants & ct-filed doc's has never been done like this before on W/S (that I recall).

Amazing how much info springs from the order, timing, & deets, like reasons for sealing.

Did not intent to offend, or to misstate your conclusion.
Glad you are here.