“The ‘Casanova’ cop who was allegedly shot by his wife, a fellow officer, as payback for his wandering eye is suing the NYPD for $3 million, claiming they should have known she was too nuts to carry a gun. … Alison [Spicer-Jamison] is charged with shooting Todd [Jamison], 44, in a jealous rage last April 10 when she learned he’d strayed from their marital bed less than a year after they married. … Todd Jamison’s suit also names the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the City of New York, the NYPD, and his wife, who’s currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, awaiting a trial date.” (Stefanie Cohen, New York Post, Mar. 31).
“NYPD’s fault my cop wife shot me”
“The ‘Casanova’ cop who was allegedly shot by his wife, a fellow officer, as payback for his wandering eye is suing the NYPD for $3 million, claiming they should have known she was too nuts to carry a gun. … Alison [Spicer-Jamison] is charged with shooting Todd [Jamison], 44, in a jealous rage last April […]
3 Comments
To quote John Wayne Bobbit: “it could have been worse”.
Under current tort doctrine of “each dog gets one bite,” I see some merit to the suit. This means that one may sue an owner whose dog bit someone before, making the tendency to bite known to the owner.
She tried to run down a previous love rival with a police car, and was transferred instead of fired.
The defenses would be assumption of risk by hooking up with such a real looker, and contributory negligence by betraying her and/or knowing her prior history of anger. The taxpayer should still not pay for the stupidity of the plaintiff.
In any case, she now seems to be where she belongs.
I quote: “The ‘Casanova’ cop who was allegedly shot by his wife, a fellow officer, as payback for his wandering eye is suing the NYPD for $3 million, claiming they should have known she was too nuts to carry a gun.”
If he, as her husband, couldn’t figure out that “she was too nuts” to tolerate his fooling around, why should the NYPD be expected to know it?