Wrongful death lawsuit filed against ex-Alabama star Brandon Miller
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
Why can't they refile in state court or vice versa?
Barring a finding of collateral estoppel or res judicata by the court, it's completely possible. There is no double jeopardy in civil law. Why do you think those 2 former principles exist to begin with?
States have varying negligence laws. For instance, contributory negligence claims still exists in some states, while comparative negligence (fault) is now the majority rule for most. Most states have adopted the restatement 2nd of torts regarding tort laws in their state, but many modify or opt for a minority rule approach.
I’m sensing someone has badged themselves: Devils Advocate.
Any guesses who I am referring to?
Any guesses who I am referring to?
People want someone to blame and he’s the rich and famous person. Their more upset about him then the person that murdered that poor girl
By reading a text bring me my gun we got a dude disrespecting us. Miller could have thought no let’s calm down. I don’t know if he will get in trouble or not. It could go either way.
If you are talking about criminal cases it is possible. But for a negligence case, you get one shot. They are likely in federal court because the plaintiff and the defendants have domiciles in different states.
So you are clearly a lawyer or a law student just being a smart ass. I'm 87 years old and retired twice from law firms. So if you are interested in arguing the law, I am game.
I am very interested. Tell me what I am wrong about. Maybe you know something I don't.
How am I being a smart ass? I am literally just reiterating the general law and rules, as well as the most likely charges against Miller.
Last edited:
The diversity part of that is going to be interesting. Will they find Miller was a resident of Bama at the time, or will he still be considered a resident of TN?
In the case I refer to it was most certainly civil. It involved an inmate who died in custody. It was filed in Federal court and dismissed and then in state court(Warren Circuit) where it came to trial. I lived it so I'm pretty sure it happened
They're upset because he basically brings the weapon to the crime scene. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. If Miller says, "Nah man. I ain't coming, "
There's a very good chance no one dies.
That is because the second case was a civil rights violation case, which is different than the original negligence case. Government employees, like prison guards, can violate your civil rights and that is a violation of §1983. Miller can't violate someone's civil rights. He doesn't work for the government.
But it is not illegal to bring a legal gun somewhere. Nothing negligent about that. As I said, if we are allowed to carry guns, we are allowed to bring someone their legal gun. There has to be a breach of a duty owed and there is no duty to the public to not drive a car and let someone retrieve their legal property from that car.
You are not reiterating any relevant law. Do you know what res ipsa loquitur is? There is absolutely no relevance here. Negligence per se, again, no relevance unless Alabama has a statute that says you are not allowed to let someone retrieve legal property from your vehicle. You are throwing legal terms around like you know what you are talking about. If you are being serious, you don't know what you are talking about. if you think by throwing a few latin words around people will believe you, you are being a smart ass.
Not exactly accurate. If you knowingly took possession of the gun, you now have a duty of care in regards to it. Driving with a gun in itself isn't inherently dangerous, but knowingly driving a gun to someone in altercation when they have texted you for it does create a negligence situation. Depending on AL statutes, it could be negligence per se. You also have res ipsa loquitur if standard negligence or neg per se aren't available. I am not saying it's a slam dunk, but it is probably prima facie negligence to at least get through the preliminary stages.
Last edited:
Well, there wouldn't have to be a statute just for retrieving a gun from a car. Lol, now I am wondering if you actually know what neg per se is. 🤣
Res ipsa allows a presumption of negligence without actually showing the negligence, essentially with total reliance on circumstantial evidence. It requires the following 3 elements, and all kind of exist here:
- The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence
- It was caused by an instrumentality solely in defendant’s control
- The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause
So if I bring you a gun, and you use it to unalive someone, I bear absolutely NO culpability? Yeah, not buying it. And we're not talking about like a week later. What if I hand you car keys, seeing you are drunk, and you slam into someone? How about then? Miller got a text to bring a gun. What did he honestly think was going to happen? Fingerpaints? Any reasonable individual would be able to dictate this was not an intelligent decision. You may not be criminally liable, but this is a civil trial. The standard of proof is much lower. I can absolutely see 7 people find him culpable. It boils down to this, if Miller doesn't bring the shooter a gun. Does anyone die? That's the very definition of wrongful death.
Maybe he thought he was going to legally defend himself with a legal gun. What if it wasn't a gun we were talking about, but a jump rope, and the guy choked her with it? Would you think the same? Two equally legal items.
Find me a res ipsa case. Negligence per se is when a statute creates the duty and someone the statute was intended to protect was harmed. There is no such duty here.
Of course there is a duty here. You have a duty to ensure property in your possession doesn't harm others. Reasonably foreseeable ringing any bells?
I don’t need to search westlaw or nexis, I literally just laid out the elements for you. You can research for yourself if you know how.
Clearly these lawyers see a colorable claim, as they are taking it on contingency. If a settlement isn't reached, it will likely be heard in court. That usually doesn't occur when valid claims don't exist.
Actually, yes. Yes I would. Now, granted, a jump rope has other purposes besides being used as a strangulation device.
A gun has one purpose, and one purpose only- to kill. That being said, I'm pro 2nd Amendment. But that begs the question, why is Miller in possession of the gun in the first place?
Lawyers file cases every day against deep pockets in an attempt to settle a case that would cost more to defend than settle. Hell, I did it for years. But if Miller defends this to the end and doesn't settle, he will win.
Pretty much every negligence case. I already named Palsgraf for you, which is the primary case law on it. You should really read it and pay special attention to Cardozo's majority opinion and Andrews' minority opinion. Might help an alleged "lawyer" figure out wtf they are talking about.
Not generally on a contingency basis where they are set to suffer a loss. Particularly not in a higher profile case that will get publicity like this one. They either think they have a very good shot at settlement or feel comfortable enough going to trial. I highly doubt they want to face sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit and/or be sued themselves for malicious prosecution, if what you say is the case.
If you did it a lot, which I highly doubt based on your self-demonstrated lack of understanding, but if so, that would make you a pretty shady and shitty lawyer. Which, based on the conversation, does kind of track.
Last edited:
Palsgraf has to do with causation. And, if you don't think lawyers file cases every day against deep pockets that they realize they could lose, you've never done it. The fact that you are so cock sure that it is a good case gives them plausible deniability against anyone saying it is frivolous, even though it likely won't survive summary judgment based upon the facts currently known.
Palsgraf is about negligence. The appeal is about the question of liability to an unforseeable plaintiff. Duty of care and causation (the concept of proximate causation) are also addressed.
"Cardozo wrote for a 4–3 majority of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no negligence because the employees, in helping the man board, did not have a duty of care to Palsgraf as injury to her was not a foreseeable harm from aiding a man with a package. The original jury verdict was overturned, and the railroad won the case."
I never said it was a good case. I know too little about the facts of the case to know. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out it's prima facie negligence based off what is known. A jury will ultimately determine it.
If you're so sure it's not, you should really reach out and offer to represent Miller. Would be an easy payday if you're right!
So now you're saying the lawyers don't think it's frivilous, just you do? I would imagine they have a pretty good idea considering they actually have a lot of the facts. 😉
Alright, bud. Well, you're free to think as you wish, and me continuing to waste my time obviously isn't going to change that. I think I'll just let it play out and see. Clearly, if Miller settles, that means he didn't get an attorney as esteemed at this as you are. 🤣
Last edited:
Yes cause I’m sure he thought his teammate was gonna shoot a female student. If he never brings a gun no one dies ? How about if his teammate doesn’t shoot no one dies. Y’all are insane lol
I'm not insane. i have a damn conscience and morals. Something the State of Alabama clearly doesn't.
They are both responsible. But please, by all means, keep elevating cold blooded narcissists.
You're right that the shooter should have never fired the gun, but it is also correct to say Miller should have never brought the gun there. Both gentlemen were in the wrong. As such, both bear some of the consequences. Obviously, Miller should not face the same level of consequences as the shooter should, but there is some responsibility there that needs to be taken into account.
If you drop some of your basketball teammates and friends off at a bar strip one night, and you know one of them leaves you their gun, then a couple of hours later, around 1am, they text you to come pick them up and bring them their gun, aren't you likely going to wonder why they need their gun at that time? Aren't you going to think to yourself it's probably not a good idea to take a gun at the time and circumstance, particularly considering you're picking up someone who has likely been drinking and may be intoxicated? I would think most reasonable people would have some concerns about that and would likely not so eagerly bring a gun there. It really gets interesting if Miller knew about the conflict the other guys were invovled in at the bar and afterwards.
As an AV Martindale-Hubbard rated retired member of the bar, I will let you continue to quote Wikipedia. If you can tell me the duty that Miller owed to the victim, and how he breached it, and how that was foreseeable to cause damage, without skipping over the the duty part of that, we can talk.
So you are a law student is my guess. Throwing out every issue that pops in your head because that is how you score points on the exam. A lesson for you. First year civ pro spends 1/2 the time on the Erie doctrine. Once you start practicing, you will never spend ten minutes on this. Res ipsa loquitur that you quoted earlier, will never appear in a case you handle in your life. Negligence per se, maybe, generally when you deal with building codes, but very rarely. But keep studying, make grades, and I hope you pass the bar on at least your first several attempts.
I can't explain duty to someone that doesn't want to understand what duty means.
I'm pretty sure when you control a gun, you have a duty to ensure someone doesn't get shot with it without justification. That also includes ensuring your drunk friends don't have you drive it to them while they are in an altercation.
I don’t recall getting points for just throwing out issues. Generally you had to go full IRAC and actually gives rules and analysis. Hell, they give you the issue already. I was quite good at it.
If you spent 1/2 a semester on Erie, you must have gone to school with some very slow learners. That was like a 30 minute lecture.
I've already worked a rep ipsa case, actually had exposure to one when I clerked as well. So there goes that logic.
Neg per se is actually used quite often in vehicle cases, particularly with violating driving laws.
Ohh, did it take you multiple attempts? Bless your heart.
The owner of the gun sent him a text. If they can prove the text was read prior to his return then you have a point. If they can’t prove that then it’s speculation on when it was read. The text was sent a short time before he arrived back to pick them up so it is highly plausible it wasn’t read.
So, If I text a buddy, "Bring my me gun, I'm going to shoot this guy" thats ok by your definition? LOL
