Prison inmate orders attack on guard at guard’s home in Bishopville, South Carolina. Surviving guard Robert Johnson and wife “did not, however, sue the typical defendants – i.e., the shooter or any prison inmate or employee. Rather, the Johnsons sued several cellular phone service providers and owners of cell phone towers. According to the Johnsons, these defendants are liable for Mr. Johnson’s injuries because they were aware that their services facilitated the illegal use of cellphones by prison inmates and yet failed to take steps to curb that use.” [Fourth Circuit opinion in Johnson v. American Towers LLC, et al., affirming district court’s dismissal of claim on the merits]
5 Comments
They don’t hire prison guards for their brilliance. I just don’t know how one of you attorneys took a serious attempt at promoting this suit. If it worked he could sue an auto company because the would-be assassin drove to the site of the assault. Why didn’t he sue himself, and by extension the State Dept. of Corrections, for failing to find the phone that the inmate used to give the instructions? The outcome is sort of good news for the gun industry. The gun-grabbers have been trying to get traction with the argument that manufacturers should know that their products may be used in a crime, therefore they have liability.
“If it worked he could sue an auto company because the would-be assassin drove to the site of the assault.”
We tried that. The evidence was found unconvincing. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoISmGnjSKg
Why is the 4th Circuit still writing in courier?
Because Comic Sans was taken by other courts. đŸ˜‰
This is as fine an example of a “Steve Dallas lawsuit” as one could hope to find!