Man plants car bomb and blows up half-brother

by Walter Olson on September 10, 2010

And the resulting lawsuit by the bomb victim names as defendants the parking garage as well as the family member. A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the garage owners, however, ruling that a car bombing was not reasonably foreseeable at their location on Wisconsin Ave. in the District of Columbia. [Sigmund v. Starwood, Findlaw, via The Briefcase]

{ 6 comments }

1 Barry Leonardini 09.10.10 at 10:21 am

Frivolous and or predatory lawsuits are enabled by the cartel characteristics of our legal system. The costly , endless appeals are underpined by the constructively monopolistic and restraint of closure to legal cases. The very effective monopoly helps even the most dumb of attorneys to succeed provided they are larcenous enough. In short , lawyers have a license to steal.

2 Matt 09.10.10 at 10:33 am

Depends on where they are on Wisconsin Ave, I’d say.

Not that there aren’t other good grounds for summary judgment…just that one in particular seems, at best, arguable.

3 E-Bell 09.10.10 at 11:11 am

It’s difficult to prove a negligent security case in D.C., due to the “heightened showing of foreseeabilty” referenced in the opinion, and justifiably so. Holding the garage owner responsible for the unusual criminal act of another would be a miscarriage of justice.

In another jurisdiction, the plaintiff may have gotten past summary judgment.

4 John Burgess 09.10.10 at 11:53 am

@Matt: I’m unaware of any part of Wisconsin Ave that is particularly attractive to car bombers. Could you help me pinpoint that?

I wonder why the car manufacturer wasn’t sued under the same theory as the garage owner? Clearly, there must be something faulty if a bomb can be installed in a Chevy so easily, no?

5 Ben S 09.10.10 at 4:49 pm

The question is, which half of the brother was blown up?

6 Doug 09.13.10 at 8:26 pm

Oh Barry. If you think most cases are appealed, you haven’t been paying attention at the court docket. Most are not appealed.

Comments on this entry are closed.