Jump to content

Crayola64

Members
  • Content Count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Crayola64

  • Rank
    RFA

Recent Profile Visitors

285 profile views
  1. Crayola64

    In 21 games with McDermott, we have been blown out 6 times

    No reason? That team was old, in cap hell, and was bad....that’s why it was dismantled
  2. Crayola64

    Bills vs. Packers 2nd Half Game Day Thread

    Been a few big plays today slip out of our hands. One of those days
  3. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    yikes, this looked like allen's third week preseason game. Just didn't look prepared at all
  4. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    That is a nathan-peterman-like excuse!
  5. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    God he looks terrible. Couldn't get the team to the line of scrimmage, and then just threw a pick 6 that got called back due to an offside
  6. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    I'm rooting for him, but glad we have the other Josh
  7. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    Ends on an interception, welp!
  8. Crayola64

    Here comes Rosen

    The ball is coming out high, if it was allen, there would be 5,000 posts about his accuracy issues.
  9. People need to understand the squatting and eviction proceeds are entirely independent of the civil lawsuit which is tottally independent of the criminal investigation.
  10. Okay, here is an actual analysis of the complaint, feel free to ask questions! 1) This is amateurish, and looks like someone who hasn't filed a lot of civil complaints (or successful ones at least). The first thing that's odd is there are exhibits to the complaint. Unless, Georgia state courts have different rules on this than most other states, this is not required for most cases and is very unnecessary (and can be harmful). Especially these types of exhibits. This likely means these exhibits are meant for the public to see. Similarly, the writing style is amateurish, and is written for the public to read. That's fine, but it just isn't done very well. This doesn't mean anything, but her using the term "trustmaker" is odd. I have never heard of this term, and its usually called a settlor. Maybe its common in Georgia, but it sounds like a term someone would use who isn't familiar with the technical word. 2) Her not having a section for her claims or causes of action is a pet peeve of mine. It isn't required, but you need to state your claims, or at the very least, make it clear what your claims are. Here there is a clear claim of negligence against McCoy, but who knows what the claim is against Porter. Again, this is just amateurish. It won't cause real issues for her, but Georgia requires a short and plain statement of the claims. Maybe what she has is sufficient. Maybe not. But even if its not, she can just amend the complaint so no biggie. 3) Okay, so the actual claim against McCoy is a negligence claim. The gist of negligence is that someone owes a duty of care to someone, breaches that duty, and this breach causes damages. Despite all of the ambiguous fluff in the complaint, the outline of her negligence claim is pretty explicit. Here are the four elements Duty: McCoy has a duty to protect her from dangerous activities being conducted at the house. Breach: McCoy breached this duty by changing the security system and preventing her from accessing the security system Cause: Somehow the breach was the causation that led to the damages (this is highly problematic....she was the victim of a home robbery) Damages: Lots here, not an issue. 4) The first thing that is going to happen is a motion to dismiss from McCoy. For a motion to dismiss, you assume every single fact in the complaint as true. You then ask, is there an actual legal claim here? To survive a motion to dismiss, the ex-girlfriend needs to show that each of those four elements of sufficient facts and legal reasoning. The standard is very low for the plaintiff to meet. Let's look at these four elements: Duty: Under OCGA Section 51-3-1, owners of land owe a duty to individuals on the premise. This law states "Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe." The common rule in Georgia is this duty does not "normally include taking measures to protect them against the intervening criminal acts of third parties, because such acts are usually unforeseeable. Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1370 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (citing Atlanta Center Ltd. v. Cox, 178 Ga.App. 184, 341 S.E.2d 15, 16 (1986)). But a "duty to take security measures against the risk of criminal acts of third parties does arise if the proprietor is put on notice, by substantially similar past incidents, that his patrons were subject to the risk of criminal assault. Grandma's Biscuits, Inc. v. Baisden, 192 Ga.App. 816, 386 S.E.2d 415, 416 (1989) (quotations omitted) ( citing Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1370 (S.D. Ga. 1993)). This is essentially an issue of foreseeability. You can only be liable under a theory of negligence for the conduct of third parties if that harm is foreseeable.*** Here the complaint doesnt touch on the issue of foreseeability, and there is a decent chance this could be grounds for a motion to dismiss. But the court likely won't even reach this as the causation element is the most lacking. Breach: I'm not going to spend much time on this. Here the argument is McCoy breached the duty (assuming there is a duty) by installing a security system. This is pretty silly. Now, the plaintiff frames this as installing a security system and not giving her access to it, but it is installing a security system nonetheless. The proper framing of this issue is McCoy did not adequately secure the premise, but this is not explained very well. On a motion to dismiss, this might be enough (but on the next change McCoy would have to defeat this lawsuit, this would be extremely problematic to the ex-girlfriend), but it leads to the next element which is the most problematic for the plaintiff Cause: How in the world does installing a security system and not providing access to the plaintiff cause the harm? That is my question, I have no earthly idea. It isn't explained and will be the primary grounds for the motion to dismiss. I don't even know what the plaintiff is hinting at here.... Re-reading, the complaint, perhaps the argument is she didn't have the ability to turn on the cameras? Again, I dont see how this would have prevented any of the harm. This theory also runs into arguments in the breach-of-duty section (can it really be a breach of duty to not give tenants full access to a security system? I doubt any court would go down this route.) Damages: Lots here, not an issue. Verdict: There is a very good chance this is dismissed on a motion to dismiss depending on how liberal the Georgia courts are on pleading standards. Regardless, I don't see how this could survive a motion for summary judgment on the issues of foreseeability or causation. *** Here is the georgia court of appeals explaining this: "The general rule is that a landlord does not ensure a tenant's safety against third-party criminal attacks, and that any liability from such attacks must be predicated on a breach of duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. OCGA § 51–3–1; Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, supra at 492(1), 405 S.E.2d 474. If a proprietor has reason to anticipate a criminal act, then the proprietor has a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury from dangerous characters. Id. The basis of liability is a proprietor's superior knowledge of the existence of a condition that may subject an invitee to an unreasonable risk of harm. Howell v. Three Rivers Security, 216 Ga.App. 890, 892, 456 S.E.2d 278 (1995)." Johnson v. Holiday Food Stores, Inc., 238 Ga. App. 822, 823, 520 S.E.2d 502, 504 (1999) (quotations omitted)
  11. Speak for yourself! This is what you call a false presumption.
  12. Only the brightest in the country (1) will go on and on about how they are sick of political correctness and people being so sensitive and (2) then run and freak out over guys dancing on the sidelines. YOUR MASCULINITY IS UNDER ATTACK MWAHAHAHA
×