Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Prime

  No it's not. That's not close to an accurate description of what vicarious liability is - which FTR has nothing to do with what the Candace Conti case is about.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

  Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.

  The response by a superior to anyone sexually or violently assaulted by a violator in the facilities owned and operated by the superior or person in charge of the facility would be to immediately contact law enforcement.

  Whatever the legal definition is for the actions of the Penn State officials, they were obviously responsible for maintaining a safe environment in their college. If some child is raped in the shower by psychopath Sandusky, contact the police.
• 

  Chaserious

  Prime, your Wikipedia-informed understanding of vicarious liability is still incorrect. Contrary to what you suggest, any theory of liability that has anything to do with reporting anything is not vicarious liability; it's regular duty-based liability. The whole idea of vicarious liability is that the entity against whom the liability is being asserted didn't have to do anything wrong at all - not even negligent hiring, supervision, monitoring, reporting, or training - rather, it is held liable merely because its agent (usually an employee) committed a tort. No one in the Conti case, not even Rick Simons, has suggested that Kendrick was an agent. Similarly in the Penn State case, Penn State would probably not be vicariously liable merely because an assault occurred, even though an "agent" committed the act. Although England and many U.S. states have started holding employers vicariously liable for sexual assault, Pennsylvania still follows the traditional common law view that a sexual assault is not within the scope of employment, and therefore vicarious liability does not attach. That is why the issue of what Penn State officials knew about and reported is important in the civil cases related to Sandusky.

  From reading your posts, it seems like you are trying to show that you have some kind of superior knowledge of legal theories by introducing terms like vicarious liability into the discussion although you don't fully understand them.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Prime said in reply: "jgnat: From this I am guessing you are claiming some kind of religious persecution of the Watchtower society or its representatives in this case? Prime:'I answered that question in my last post. The answer is no.' ..You've changed your mind, then? On the beliefnet thread you stated the following >>
• 

  The Quiet One

  "I didn't expect this judge to make an unbiased decision. This man (Robert McGuiness) tried to prevent the Watchtower Society from selling and transferring their property in Brooklyn, NY. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? In cases of civil litigation, at most, a defendant has to put any money allocated to the plaintiff in bond until the outcome of an appeal. The Watchtower Society was able to reverse this judge's assault on the organization through an appeal bond."..and also.."These are some reasons (there are several others) why it's a corrupt judgment based on falsities and likely some prejudice against Jehovah's Witnesses." http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/29365013/What_Part_did_Gary_Abrahamson_Play_in_the_Candace_Conti_Court_Case?pg=2
• 

  Prime

  Prime, your Wikipedia-informed understanding of vicarious liability is still incorrect. Contrary to what you suggest, any theory of liability that has anything to do with reporting anything is not vicarious liability; it's regular duty-based liability. The whole idea of vicarious liability is that the entity against whom the liability is being asserted didn't have to do anything wrong at all - not even negligent hiring, supervision, monitoring, reporting, or training - rather, it is held liable merely because its agent (usually an employee) committed a tort. No one in the Conti case, not even Rick Simons, has suggested that Kendrick was an agent. Similarly in the Penn State case, Penn State would probably not be vicariously liable merely because an assault occurred, even though an "agent" committed the act. Although England and many U.S. states have started holding employers vicariously liable for sexual assault, Pennsylvania still follows the traditional common law view that a sexual assault is not within the scope of employment, and therefore vicarious liability does not attach. That is why the issue of what Penn State officials knew about and reported is important in the civil cases related to Sandusky.

  From reading your posts, it seems like you are trying to show that you have some kind of superior knowledge of legal theories by introducing terms like vicarious liability into the discussion although you don't fully understand them.

  From reading my posts, you would think you'd arrive at the conclusion that my assertions are based on common sense. The one time I use a technical term, the conversation gets technical as you've demonstrated here, especially if the law is interpreted differently depending on what state you live in.
• 

  mind blown

  Good grief.....Prime....are you Alice In Wonderland? If so you all are wasting your time.....
• 

  The Quiet One

  Prime said: "The one time I use a technical term, the conversation gets technical.." Ah well, at least you've learned something today.. ;)
• 

  Chaserious

  The one time I use a technical term

  It's not the only time you've gotten technical in this thread.

  my assertions are based on common sense.

  Then why would you bring in a term like "vicarious liability" that nobody else used? Is that the kind of term you use in your everyday conversations? Also, I don't know that I agree that you are just here arguing common sense. You have strongly implied that the rulings of the trial judge in the Conti case were based upon bias. That requires the conclusion that some of his rulings were legally incorrect, because of course if they were based upon the law, legal doctrine would be the foundation of the rulings, rather than bias.
• 

  The Quiet One

  I agree. Just to reiterate what he said, and in order to support your point.. Prime said on beliefnet: "These are some reasons (there are several others) why it's a corrupt judgment based on falsities.."etc
• 

  The Quiet One

  "In criminal law, a violation of the law and associated punishment is defined by statute. In civil law (whose emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation than on punishment), legal statutes may be referenced, but grounds for liability is defined by prior lawsuits." .. This is an example of you just expressing your 'assertions based on common sense'? ..Surely you realise that you come across as someone who thinks they know what they are talking about in regards to legal matters?