Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #87

[Cool Cats]

The MOAB officers didn't have any background information (if there was any), so I don't see how they could be expected to do anything different. Everyone now wishes they would have interceded earlier. Still, if the people who intimately knew the personalities of Brian and Gabby didn't sense anything amiss, I don't think the LE can be held to blame for not being able to foresee what would happen.

All just MOO.

I do not think the Petito's will win this Moab lawsuit.

If these officers just talked to them and drove away then they would be up a creek without a paddle. But they did do something, something good. Deliberately split them up for the entire night.

And G and B were adults and were fine with this solution, gave consent to this solution.

 

[PrairieWind]

No legal duty or they would have been charged with a misdemeanor I believe.

This isn't criminal court this is civil court, there is a big difference and maybe some people get confused.

"legal duty" refers to civil actions. To bring a negligence case you must show that 1. The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, 2. that they breached that duty; 3. that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the harm, and 4. that the Defendant suffered damages due to that breach. Did the Laundrie parents have a legal duty to the Petitos to tell them what they knew? I don't know what legal theory would be used to make that link.

 

[Cool Cats]

"legal duty" refers to civil actions. To bring a negligence case you must show that 1. The defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, 2. that they breached that duty; 3. that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the harm, and 4. that the Defendant suffered damages due to that breach. Did the Laundrie parents have a legal duty to the Petitos to tell them what they knew? I don't know what legal theory would be used to make that link.

So it isn't a crime but it is a legal duty. Never heard of it. Confusing. The judge ruled there was enough evidence to go forward so wouldn't he think there is a legal duty?

I'm sorry, could you give an example of a civil case that did have a legal duty?

 

[PrairieWind]

So it isn't a crime but it is a legal duty. Never heard of it. Confusing. The judge ruled there was enough evidence to go forward so wouldn't he think there is a legal duty?

I'm sorry, could you give an example of a civil case that did have a legal duty?

Has the Judge ruled on evidence? I believe this matter is still in its very early stages. An Answer has just been filed.

But criminal conduct is completely separate from civil causes of action and in many cases criminal aspects may not be used as evidence in a civil matter. In my state, in a traffic accident civil case, whether one driver was issued a citation is not admissible in a civil trail.

But in a negligence case for example, lets say a traffic accident, you allege that the driver that hit you had a legal duty to operate their vehicle in a reasonable manner, and they violated that by running into you. I just had a case where a property owner is suing a construction company that was working on the next door home and damaged his property. They had a duty to operate their machinery in a reasonable manner and breached that duty by destroying his fence and trees. Is that a crime? No, but there is still a legal duty to not negligently damage other people's property.
In the Petito Complaint, they allege "Intentional/Reckless conduct." We don't have such a cause of action in my area, so I don't even know what that means. Answers are filed or being filed and a schedule will issue with some discovery following. I would expect the Laundries to file a Motion for Summary Judgment saying that there simply is no legal requirement for them to have notified the Petitos of anything.

 

[ch_13]

Has the Judge ruled on evidence? I believe this matter is still in its very early stages. An Answer has just been filed.

But criminal conduct is completely separate from civil causes of action and in many cases criminal aspects may not be used as evidence in a civil matter. In my state, in a traffic accident civil case, whether one driver was issued a citation is not admissible in a civil trail.

But in a negligence case for example, lets say a traffic accident, you allege that the driver that hit you had a legal duty to operate their vehicle in a reasonable manner, and they violated that by running into you. I just had a case where a property owner is suing a construction company that was working on the next door home and damaged his property. They had a duty to operate their machinery in a reasonable manner and breached that duty by destroying his fence and trees. Is that a crime? No, but there is still a legal duty to not negligently damage other people's property.
In the Petito Complaint, they allege "Intentional/Reckless conduct." We don't have such a cause of action in my area, so I don't even know what that means. Answers are filed or being filed and a schedule will issue with some discovery following. I would expect the Laundries to file a Motion for Summary Judgment saying that there simply is no legal requirement for them to have notified the Petitos of anything.

I know the lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss, the depositions have been completed and the trial is currently scheduled for May. Can the Laundrie's still file a motion for summary judgment at this point?

My understanding is that the Petito position is that the Laundrie's had the option to remain silent, however instead they made statements that they didn't know what happened to Gabby when they in fact did, and their lies caused extreme emotional distress. (I'm only stating the Petito position. Of course, what the Laundrie's actually knew about Gabby's murder is a matter of fact to be decided by the jury.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I gather that this is a fairly novel legal theory, so any finding for the plaintiff is almost certain to be appealed.

---


This case has me thinking of a hypothetical question that I'd like to pose for @PrairieWind or anyone else who wants to chime in...A search and rescue team is looking for a missing person, and is doing a grid search. One of the searchers sees the corpse of the missing person in their assigned area. However, they don't report it and instead claim that they saw nothing. Because of their lie, the body is not found until much later. Is the searcher in any way criminally or civilly liable? And what if instead of a corpse it's a still-living person who dies because of their inaction?

 

[MyBelle]

I know the lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss, the depositions have been completed and the trial is currently scheduled for May. Can the Laundrie's still file a motion for summary judgment at this point?

My understanding is that the Petito position is that the Laundrie's had the option to remain silent, however instead they made statements that they didn't know what happened to Gabby when they in fact did, and their lies caused extreme emotional distress. (I'm only stating the Petito position. Of course, what the Laundrie's actually knew about Gabby's murder is a matter of fact to be decided by the jury.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I gather that this is a fairly novel legal theory, so any finding for the plaintiff is almost certain to be appealed.

---


This case has me thinking of a hypothetical question that I'd like to pose for @PrairieWind or anyone else who wants to chime in...A search and rescue team is looking for a missing person, and is doing a grid search. One of the searchers sees the corpse of the missing person in their assigned area. However, they don't report it and instead claim that they saw nothing. Because of their lie, the body is not found until much later. Is the searcher in any way criminally or civilly liable? And what if instead of a corpse it's a still-living person who dies because of their inaction?

BBM. I've seen no evidence the Laundries knew what happened to Gabby or where she was located. I've seen no evidence they lied to anyone.

JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

I know the lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss, the depositions have been completed and the trial is currently scheduled for May. Can the Laundrie's still file a motion for summary judgment at this point?

My understanding is that the Petito position is that the Laundrie's had the option to remain silent, however instead they made statements that they didn't know what happened to Gabby when they in fact did, and their lies caused extreme emotional distress. (I'm only stating the Petito position. Of course, what the Laundrie's actually knew about Gabby's murder is a matter of fact to be decided by the jury.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I gather that this is a fairly novel legal theory, so any finding for the plaintiff is almost certain to be appealed.

---


This case has me thinking of a hypothetical question that I'd like to pose for @PrairieWind or anyone else who wants to chime in...A search and rescue team is looking for a missing person, and is doing a grid search. One of the searchers sees the corpse of the missing person in their assigned area. However, they don't report it and instead claim that they saw nothing. Because of their lie, the body is not found until much later. Is the searcher in any way criminally or civilly liable? And what if instead of a corpse it's a still-living person who dies because of their inaction?

Surviving a Motion to Dismiss (which are almost never granted) and a Motion for SJ are very different. There should be a scheduling order in this case, do we have access to that? It should state when dispositive motions can be filed and considered.

 

[ch_13]

Surviving a Motion to Dismiss (which are almost never granted) and a Motion for SJ are very different. There should be a scheduling order in this case, do we have access to that? It should state when dispositive motions can be filed and considered.

Got it, thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM. I've seen no evidence the Laundries knew what happened to Gabby or where she was located. I've seen no evidence they lied to anyone.

JMO

No one has, that is why there will be a trial. At trial the evidence will be under a microscope for the jury.

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue the discussion at Thread #88