KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^Lasttear my sentiments too, and especially the one who wanted to go further when they reached the question where they had to stop, that is more a personal issue with the juror. I mean if you go further to debate that there was a conflict, does it show Muarry was or was not competent for the job he was hired for. Or, is it that some felt AEG was ruthless, so they should be punished for something? To me in most cases jurors with a lot going on in their lives, are happy to get the process over and continue with their lives which were on hold while the jury process was going on. I assume there will be some who want the process to continue for some reason or other.

I can't see these jury statements carrying any weight to have a new trial.

This push to continue with a long new trial/appeal processes have me thinking. Question: If an appeal process has started, and the main person dies (Katherine) does her estate continue the process to the end? Anyone knows? I was wondering if someone like Randy is her executor or heir and they are pushing this process, so that if she dies the living children still have a chance (when pigs fly) to get some money from AEG, which is really who this money is for.

Then, Panish firm must really be getting some money for them to continue with this case. I guess as long as some money is coming in, they will stay on.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^Lasttear my sentiments too, and especially the one who wanted to go further when they reached the question where they had to stop, that is more a personal issue with the juror. I mean if you go further to debate that there was a conflict, does it show Muarry was or was not competent for the job he was hired for. Or, is it that some felt AEG was ruthless, so they should be punished for something? To me in most cases jurors with a lot going on in their lives, are happy to get the process over and continue with their lives which were on hold while the jury process was going on. I assume there will be some who want the process to continue for some reason or other.

I can't see these jury statements carrying any weight to have a new trial.

This push to continue with a long new trial/appeal processes have me thinking. Question: If an appeal process has started, and the main person dies (Katherine) does her estate continue the process to the end? Anyone knows? I was wondering if someone like Randy is her executor or heir and they are pushing this process, so that if she dies the living children still have a chance (when pigs fly) to get some money from AEG, which is really who this money is for.

Then, Panish firm must really be getting some money for them to continue with this case. I guess as long as some money is coming in, they will stay on.

The lawsuit was on behalf of Katherine AND Michael's children, so they would be the beneficiaries of a win on an appeal (which is not likely). My understanding is that according to Michael's will, Katherine's portion of the estate reverts back to Michael's children, i.e. she can't will it to HER children. Randy will never be "executor" of Michael's estate. . . . . He could be already named as executor of Katherine's estate, of any assets she may have, but those assets do not include the money Michael willed to his own children.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Question: If an appeal process has started, and the main person dies (Katherine) does her estate continue the process to the end? Anyone knows? I was wondering if someone like Randy is her executor or heir and they are pushing this process, so that if she dies the living children still have a chance (when pigs fly) to get some money from AEG, which is really who this money is for.

short answer is yes. If Katherine dies her Estate would take over and if there's any win her share would be distributed according to her will / Estate.

The lawsuit was on behalf of Katherine AND Michael's children, so they would be the beneficiaries of a win on an appeal (which is not likely). My understanding is that according to Michael's will, Katherine's portion of the estate reverts back to Michael's children, i.e. she can't will it to HER children. Randy will never be "executor" of Michael's estate. . . . . He could be already named as executor of Katherine's estate, of any assets she may have, but those assets do not include the money Michael willed to his own children.

I don't think Petra was asking about Michael's will. She was asking about AEG trial, that has 4 plaintiffs and Katherine can will her share (assuming winning the appeal) to her own beneficiaries.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Looking at LastTear latest post, I agree. It sounds like some juries wanted to find fault in AEG because AEG did not really care for Michael and Mrs. Jackson's side did a good job painting them as jackasses. From a pure emotional level, you do not want to give AEG anything, especially with Americans in general hating big companies since the crash of 08. Add a given mother and kids and you can see why juries would want to side with KJ.

Thing is courts are ruled by evidences and facts, not emotions or gut feelings. This makes juries do stuff that do not want to do, despite what public opinion or even moral opinion dictates.

KJ's side never showed that Murray was incompetent for the job he was hiring for. Nothing in his contract said he was there to give drugs or to treat sleep issues. Even if he was, what foresight was there that he was acting negligence? When AEG did show concern it was more towards Klien or something Michael himself was doing behind everyone's back. KJ's side played the emotional card and hoped that would be enough to get a ruling in their favor. For fans, who loved Michael, the emotional argument was more than enough to see AEG guilty of something, even if the crime was being cold-hearted. It also does not help that many fans had a bias against AEG before any of this started so nothing AEG showed or did was going to make them not guilty.

Going by what Ivy had said about the court doc, I cannot see this appeal going far. But strange and surprising things have happened. I can easily see this going on for years, unfortunately.

 

[Victory22]

short answer is yes. If Katherine dies her Estate would take over and if there's any win her share would be distributed according to her will / Estate.




I don't think Petra was asking about Michael's will. She was asking about AEG trial, that has 4 plaintiffs and Katherine can will her share (assuming winning the appeal) to her own beneficiaries.

Question for Ivy: Would Michael’s Estate still be obligated to pay expenses incurred by whoever Katherine leaves in charge of her estate when she dies?

 

[Soundmind]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

clearly not but with Branca you don't know

 

[LMAT]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The plaintiffs' lawyers have always maintained that a compromised doctor is unfit and incompetent because a compromised doctor does not put the patient first. Hindsight logic is AEG knowing or should have known about ANY treatment the doctor gave. AEG did NOT need to know about any treatment the doctor gave as that is doctor-patient confidentiality. However, Gongaware was privy to how doctors did behave unethically with Michael on tour.

Hiring the doctor and having that doctor beholden to AEG and NOT the patient means Michael is not first, the doctor is compromised, the doctor has conflicted interest, and therefore, the doctor is unfit and incompetent.

I must say the motion is a compelling read! The factual background was an excellent summary of the events. I was unaware that question one may have been an error as well and may not have been necessary for the verdict form. The motion also clearly explains the legal differences between negligent hiring and negligent retention or supervision. It also details why a separate negligence claim was necessary but, may have been erroneously denied.

I believe the chances for success may be higher than the previously discussed 20% or so for this particular trial.

I wonder would it be better to have a new trial or to have an appeal?

Far as I know there is no P.S. on the Hippocratic Oath that states...'Wait, you, new physician, must abide by your sacred oath unless...you feel compromised in some way. Maybe your debts have accumulated or your marriage is failing, or your kids are in trouble, or maybe you are offered a good deal of money (could help you pay your med school loans)that tempts/prods you to provide incompetent, sub par care to a patient who is depending(ant) on you."

Nope. Doesn't exist. Regardless of pressure, feeling compromised, debts up the ying-yang, sugar fairy dreams of mega bucks or that dancer in the bar down the street...a physician must put secondary concerns aside and put the patient first. Responsibility for life and death lies in his/her hands..ONLY. No excuses. No blaming an employer, supervisor, victim or circumstances. Doesn't fly.

 

[ivy]

Question for Ivy: Would Michael’s Estate still be obligated to pay expenses incurred by whoever Katherine leaves in charge of her estate when she dies?

clearly not but with Branca you don't know

Well I personally don't think they are obligated to pay half of the expenses they pay but as Soundmind says it looks like Estate is trying to be accommodating and friendly.

 

[passy001]

Question for Ivy: Would Michael’s Estate still be obligated to pay expenses incurred by whoever Katherine leaves in charge of her estate when she dies?

it really depends if the kids will still want to be part of the suit at that point. mind you they will be the ONLY beneficiaries when KJ passes. so if they withdraw from the suit/appeals, the estate could stop paying the bills.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

.a physician must put secondary concerns aside and put the patient first. Responsibility for life and death lies in his/her hands..ONLY. No excuses. No blaming an employer, supervisor, victim or circumstances. Doesn't fly.

Not in reality. If what you said was reality, we would not have had a trial at all; there would be no legal standing. Such pesky legalities exist for a reason.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Not in reality. If what you said was reality, we would not have had a trial at all; there would be no legal standing. Such pesky legalities exist for a reason.

It still does not fly. Doctors must put their patients first. besides why not suing the doctor himself? he's the KILLER, remember.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

It still does not fly. Doctors must put their patients first. besides why not suing the doctor himself? he's the KILLER, remember.

Passy001, I did not author these legalities. The criminal trial saw the killer guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a crime of negligence. That seemed to be forgotten in the civil trial against AEG. If the doctor was considered negligent, his employers would have been seen as negligent as well. The negative answer to question two absolved AEG and the killer and put sole blame on Michael for his passing.

Please do not forget AEG could also sue the doctor civilly however, they had profited from TII so, there was no true legal recourse against their employee/independent contractor.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Passy001, I did not author these legalities. The criminal trial saw the killer guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a crime of negligence. That seemed to be forgotten in the civil trial against AEG. If the doctor was considered negligent, his employers would have been seen as negligent as well. The negative answer to question two absolved AEG and the killer and put sole blame on Michael for his passing.

There was absolutely nothing that stopped KJ from suing Murray. also, the jacksons never proved AEG was negligent in hiring Murray.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

There was absolutely nothing that stopped KJ from suing Murray.

That is a restitution discussion.

also, the jacksons never proved AEG was negligent in hiring Murray.

We are currently awaiting the ruling for a new trial/appeal. Let us be patient.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

There was absolutely nothing that stopped KJ from suing Murray. also, the jacksons never proved AEG was negligent in hiring Murray.

Right. KJ said after CM was sentenced that 4 years wasn't enough, but she could have sued CM in civil court instead of the deep pockets of AEG. Some fans seems to be spending day after day after day of thinking how many more ways they can twist the facts that that dear "family" doesn't appear to be greedy or trying to justify their actions.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^^Restitution thread.

Evidence DID prove that AEG hire the doctor. Many do believe that hiring was negligent.

The jurors are twelve people of which two disagreed with the doctor being fit and competent which pointed to his negligence. As per the affidavits, four jurors believed this and felt constrained by question two.

Absolving the doctor of negligence absolved AEG so it is interesting that some believe an employer is not responsible for their employee/independent contractor's actions on the job they were hired for.

 

[marebear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If there is a new trial then everyone starts all over again with their evidence and testimonies?

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Absolving the doctor of negligence absolved AEG so it is interesting that some believe an employer is not responsible for their employee/independent contractor's actions on the job they were hired for.

not quite.

it's not automatic that the employee/ independent contractors negligence is transferred to the the employer. If it was there wouldn't be a need for all the negligent hiring, supervision and retention lawsuits. Whether the negligence of the employee/ IC is something employer needs to be held responsible for is determined in a court of law case by case basis. So there's nothing surprising in some believing an employer is not responsible for employee/ IC actions and some believing the opposite.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy, it is interesting to me, not surprising. I was speaking only about this past civil trial. In this trial, absolving the doctor of his negligence was the only way to absolve AEG. They were directly linked.

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy, it is interesting to me, not surprising. I was speaking only about this past civil trial. In this trial, absolving the doctor of his negligence was the only way to absolve AEG. They were directly linked.

How so? I believe that the negligence was pointed exactly where it should go - to Murray.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but AEG not being negligent does not follow that Murray was not.

 

[Victory22]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

It should be noted that MJ also hired Murray so saying AEG was negligent also opens the door to Michael being found negligent. How many of us on this forum want that to happen?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

im sure some dont mind aslong as the jacksons all become billionaires

 

[bobmoo79]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^^Restitution thread.

Evidence DID prove that AEG hire the doctor. Many do believe that hiring was negligent.

The jurors are twelve people of which two disagreed with the doctor being fit and competent which pointed to his negligence. As per the affidavits, four jurors believed this and felt constrained by question two.

Absolving the doctor of negligence absolved AEG so it is interesting that some believe an employer is not responsible for their employee/independent contractor's actions on the job they were hired for.

The conversation can go on and on for one hundred years. It's not a clear cut issue.
But we do know that AEG were considered to have hired Murray (according to the jury) for general medical care. In my opinion there was no evidence at the time that he was hired that he was incompetent for the job of general medical care (admittedly that description is very broad).
MJ was killed by Murray's negligence as it related to the administration of propofol - a job Murray was not hired for because it does not fall under the banner of general medical care IMO. I did not follow the trial very closely so I may have misunderstood.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy, it is interesting to me, not surprising. I was speaking only about this past civil trial. In this trial, absolving the doctor of his negligence was the only way to absolve AEG. They were directly linked.

I was talking about civil trial as well. again there's no automatic or direct relationship that says murray negligent = aeg negligent or murray not negligent = aeg not negligent. As I mentioned before and as negligent hiring lawsuit examples show before it's possible for murray to be negligent and AEG not negligent as they couldn't have known.

You personally might think murray's negligence = aeg's negligence but US law is clear that employers negligence is a matter that's determined in a court of law and needs four conditions to be met. So it is possible for the negligence to be solely put on the employee.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Katherine Jackson to AEG You're Charging Me for Parking!!!
49 minutes ago BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE


Katherine Jackson is irate that AEG is asking her to pay more than $1.2 million in costs associated with the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial ... claiming many of the so-called "expenses" are bogus.

AEG -- which won the case -- is asking the judge to sock Katherine with court costs. But according to new docs, obtained by TMZ, Katherine is blanching at a bunch of them, including:

-- $540,000 in models and blow-up court exhibits
-- $20,000 for 1,000 pages of jury instruction paper and other stuff
-- $53,000 for process servers
-- $118,000 unnecessary depositions

Katherine is even grousing about the $9 parking fees tacked on for court reporters to show up for the trial.

A judge hasn't decided what, if anything, Katherine will have to shell out.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/18/kathe...death-michael-jackson-expenses/#ixzz2nrZLnZ3Q

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I thought she was getting off cheap when I heard that $1.2M figure. I know what we spend on trials here and we don't have to factor in the billable hours of suits from O&M.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Got Jacksons reply but it's whole a lot of numbers and I'm tired so I'll just say this

AEG is asking for $1,217,684.66

Jacksons claim AEG aren't entitled to get reimbursed for $932,157.00 of it

Which means Jacksons are only willing to pay $285,527.66 to AEG.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Katherine Jackson to AEG You're Charging Me for Parking!!!
49 minutes ago BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE


Katherine Jackson is irate that AEG is asking her to pay more than $1.2 million in costs associated with the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial ... claiming many of the so-called "expenses" are bogus.

AEG -- which won the case -- is asking the judge to sock Katherine with court costs. But according to new docs, obtained by TMZ, Katherine is blanching at a bunch of them, including:

-- $540,000 in models and blow-up court exhibits
-- $20,000 for 1,000 pages of jury instruction paper and other stuff
-- $53,000 for process servers
-- $118,000 unnecessary depositions

Katherine is even grousing about the $9 parking fees tacked on for court reporters to show up for the trial.

A judge hasn't decided what, if anything, Katherine will have to shell out.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/18/kathe...death-michael-jackson-expenses/#ixzz2nrZLnZ3Q

She is lucky, it could have been millions. Both sides had too many duplicate depositions, so that one I agree with. What did they expect for a case that went on for more than 2 months, and didn't they see there was a lot of paperwork going back and forth? Copying, parking, depositions, travel, & experts cost a lot of money. Poor Michael will now have to pay for all this.

Interesting how they want to pay less than they paid for their most expensive expert. I hope the judge allows all expenses as long as AEG has legit receipts. The only downside is Michael has to pay, so the estate should give it to Katherine as a loan again.

I wonder how much she already gave to Panish's firm? It has to be at least 1 million.

 

[Tygger]

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?
Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?
Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?

AEG was directly linked to the doctor once it was determined AEG hired the doctor as per the verdict form. The only way to absolve AEG was to state the doctor was not negligent; i.e. he was fit and competent. If the doctor was considered to be negligent for the civil trial purposes, the chances of the hiring being considered negligent increases. AEG being simply negligent was a claim removed by the judge so I can only speaking of negligent hiring.

Although jurors told the media they would have answered “no” to question three, they would have to explain that as that question was not about AEG knowing about propofol. Evidence showed AEG was made aware of Michael’s decline.

As per this verdict, Michael is considered responsible for his own passing. AEG as employer and their employee/independent contractor were not considered to be negligent with this verdict in this wrongful death suit which leaves Michael.

Bobmoo79, Phillips and Gongaware both testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues. Not yes, not no. Payne testified he believed the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues and Gongaware knew. Again, that is not to say AEG knew about propofol because that is hindsight. AEG only had to be aware that the doctor was compromised and Michael, as the patient, was not first.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I thought 1.2 million was small amount to think that they spent few years putting up defence.
If plaintiffs had won the case, the bill would have been bigger and possibly as many bogus charges as possible. Shell out the money Panish and shut up.