Injured cops sue Trump, Trump campaign and rightwingers

[mcmurtry66]

Depends on whether you're a fellow employee of officer, director or representative of the injured party's employer. If so, workers comp . . . if not, then negligence/intentional torts would apply.

I once had a case that was the inverse of this. A claimant sued a church for damages incurred when the pastor of the church sexually molested at least one child at the child care center that used by the church's name . . . and was run by the pastor's wife. I represented the church, and filed a MtD based on the actionable activity - the molestation - was outside of the pastor's scope of employment. (I cited a Florida case in which a state trooper pulled over a woman, then raped her . . . on appeal the court said that rape was not within the trooper's scope of employment.) Of course, those cases were in the old days . . . early 80s - I haven't kept up with how the scope of employment rules have developed since then.

Seems to me that the complaint is drafted in a way to avoid the application of Workers Compensation rules . . . and might be successful.

will be interesting to see sope. i'm going to disagree and say no negligence/torts will work. these are Cap police injured while providing security (i.e. the course and scope of their employment). trump was still the president at the time. so no claim against trump will work. third party claims against non gov employees like the proud boys might fly provided there is no federal case law that supports the fireman's rule like states. if there's a fireman's rule then those claims won't work either.

just by way of example. city cop gets called to the arena to break up a fight. the cop has a comp claim but he doesn't get to sue the person he was in a fight with because that was what he was there to do. fireman's rule prevents it. cop gets called to the arena to stop a fight and on his way to the arena gets t-boned. then the cop gets a comp claim but also a third party tort claim against hte driver because that wasn't what he was called upon to do and outside of the fireman's rule.

 

[Sope Creek]

Lol for sure. I'm sure the personal capacity is an attempt to circumvent the immunity. I didn't read the lawsuit. Are they DC cops? I thought they were fed Capitol cops which would fall under FECA. Comp under FECA is the sole remedy - you can't circumvent a comp claim to pursue a civil action - as I understand it.

I read FECA to limit the liability of the United States only, not to prevent claims against other parties.

FECA Section 8116 says:

The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or the instrumentality because of the injury or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an administrative or judicial proceeding under a workmen's compensation statute or under a Federal tort liability statute.

These claims aren't against the US . . . they're against others, and, except for the possible exception of Trump, don't seem to be excluded under FECA.

Methinks you're asserting a broader exclusion/defense than is statutorily intended.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I read FECA to limit the liability of the United States only, not to prevent claims against other parties.

FECA Section 8116 says:

The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or the instrumentality because of the injury or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an administrative or judicial proceeding under a workmen's compensation statute or under a Federal tort liability statute.

These claims aren't against the US . . . they're against others, and, except for the possible exception of Trump, don't seem to be excluded under FECA.

Methinks you're asserting a broader exclusion/defense than is statutorily intended.

Then it depends if there is a fireman's rule at the federal level like the states have. i don't know that answer. look at my other reply to you regarding that

 

[Sope Creek]

will be interesting to see sope. i'm going to disagree and say no negligence/torts will work. these are Cap police injured while providing security (i.e. the course and scope of their employment). trump was still the president at the time. third party claims against non gov employees like the proud boys might fly provided there is no federal case law that supports the fireman's rule like states. if there's a fireman's rule then those claims won't work either.

just by way of example. city copy providing security at arena gets into a fight. the cop has a comp claim but he doesn't get to sue the person he was in a fight with because that was what he was there called upon to do. fireman's rule prevents it. cop gets called to the arena to stop a fight and on his way to the arena gets t-boned. then the cop gets a comp claim but also a third party tort claim against hte driver because that wasn't what he was called upon to do and outside of the fireman's rule.

Those cops weren't providing security for Trump, as president. I don't believe they were providing security for Trump at all . . . they were protecting the US Capitol.

I don't know about the application of the fireman's rule in this circumstance . . . but I do know that plaintiff's lawyers take risks for the potential large payouts that can be available. They're entrepreneurs . . . most of them not very good at business. But the ones who are good at business . . . you can follow their trails and often can rely on their judgment about whether a newly filed claim will fly in court.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Those cops weren't providing security for Trump, as president. I don't believe they were providing security for Trump at all . . . they were protecting the US Capitol.

I don't know about the application of the fireman's rule in this circumstance . . . but I do know that plaintiff's lawyers take risks for the potential large payouts that can be available. They're entrepreneurs . . . most of them not very good at business. But the ones who are good at business . . . you can follow their trails and often can rely on their judgment about whether a newly filed claim will fly in court.

providing security for trump is immaterial. they are employed by the US gov. they were injured during the course and scope of protecting the capitol - their job. to me that falls squarely under the ambit of FECA. now if they want to pursue the proud boys etc. that again will turn imo on whether the fed level has a comparable fireman's rule. i don't know the answer to that.

if a city cop gets injured he doesn't get to sue the mayor in tort. he files a comp claim. the exclusive remedy vis-à-vis the er.

i will add tho sope that what i'm writing is how things operate at the state level and i'm extrapolating same. i'm not certain at the fed level other than to know FECA is an exclusive remedy

 

[Sope Creek]

Then it depends if there is a fireman's rule at the federal level like the states have. i don't know that answer. look at my other reply to you regarding that

Understood.

What might be an interesting alternative is whether the US is subrogated to any rights of recovery against the defendants based on payments made by the US government for the injuries. It would be very interesting if the DOJ were to join this lawsuit as a plaintiff.

 

[Sope Creek]

providing security for trump is immaterial. they are employed by the US gov. they were injured during the course and scope of protecting the capitol - their job. to me that falls squarely under the ambit of FECA. now if they want to pursue the proud boys etc. that again will turn imo on whether the fed level has a comparable fireman's rule. i don't know the answer to that.

if a city cop gets injured he doesn't get to sue the mayor in tort. he files a comp claim. the exclusive remedy vis-à-vis the er.

i will add tho sope that what i'm writing is how things operate at the state level and i'm extrapolating same. i'm not certain at the fed level other than to know FECA is an exclusive remedy

If the mayor were to knife the city cop intentionally, I'd be hard pressed to understand why the cop couldn't sue the mayor. I don't think the exclusivity is as broad as you're asserting it to be.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Understood.

What might be an interesting alternative is whether the US is subrogated to any rights of recovery against the defendants based on payments made by the US government for the injuries. It would be very interesting if the DOJ were to join this lawsuit as a plaintiff.

and again sope i know how all of this works at the state level. i don't know at the fed level so i'm guessing, other than knowing FECA is ostensibly an exclusive remedy.

as for subrogation for sure. at the state level if you have a third party liable that falls outside of the scope of the fireman's rule then the city/state is entitled to recover from the third party a portion of what they've paid out for treatment AND injuries. most states even have a formula for it. if a third party case in this can go forward i would bet the US gov has a right to recover (not really subrogation but a lien).

 

[Sope Creek]

and again sope i know how all of this works at the state level. i don't know at the fed level so i'm guessing, other than knowing FECA is ostensibly an exclusive remedy.

as for subrogation for sure. at the state level if you have a third party liable that falls outside of the scope of the fireman's rule then the city/state is entitled to recover from the third party a portion of what they've paid out for treatment AND injuries. most states even have a formula for it. if a third party case in this can go forward i would bet the US gov has a right to recover (not really subrogation but a lien).

Let's litigate this sucker!!! Then we'll know . . . more.

(on edit): Maybe.

(on 2nd edit): I did a little snooping around online and couldn't find anything regarding the fireman's rule as applicable under FECA or as might apply to the DC cops' lawsuit against Trump et al. Perhaps it's a case of first impression . . . and we all know what bad facts make for . . . .

 

[mcmurtry66]

Let's litigate this sucker!!! Then we'll know . . . more.

(on edit): Maybe.

LOL honestly i think this thing is one of two things: 1) exactly what you said in that they are just using it to gather information or 2) fed comp is shit so they the cops said F it let's do this and try

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Who should the cops injured in BLM riots sue?

The organizers. Same as jan 6.

 

[vesuvius13]

I have a couple questions, but here's the story ...

Seven US Capitol Police officers sue former President Trump, Stop the Steal organizers over January 6 riot | CNN Politics

Seven US Capitol Police officers are suing former President Donald Trump, Stop the Steal rally organizers and members of far-right extremist groups, accusing them of spreading lies, using White supremacist sentiments to attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, and ultimately bearing...

www.cnn.com

... and here's the link to the actual lawsuit:

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/08/26/lawsuit.pdf

1. What will it cost Trump to defend this? Is $50,000 to $100,000 out of the question? More than that?

2. The complaint said they sued Trump "solely in his personal capacity." Since Trump was in office on Jan. 6 (giving speeches and statements from the White House grounds) can the Plaintiffs' language operate to keep Trump from claiming some kind of immunity for an official act? Are the plaintiffs able to carve out Trump's personal actions from his official acts?

Thanks in advance.

Fat chance of winning when Trump told them to be peaceful. He didn't want to to act the way a few did. There is a reason the committee for 1/6 doesn't want video shown in the capital because people would see it was peaceful. I would be surprised if federal officers were in the crowd [we seen one already] encouraging the crowd to do what a few did [the FBI is know for doing this by the way]. I wasn't a fan of Trump's personal behavior but the MSM edited what he said to portray him as a bad person once he became President.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Yup, they were so peaceful that people were injured, that people were killed and some capital police are now dealing with ptsd.

 

[UncleMark]

Yup, they were so peaceful that people were injured, that people were killed and some capital police are now dealing with ptsd.

Yeah, but when they got inside they all behaved themselves.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Fat chance of winning when Trump told them to be peaceful. He didn't want to to act the way a few did. There is a reason the committee for 1/6 doesn't want video shown in the capital because people would see it was peaceful. I would be surprised if federal officers were in the crowd [we seen one already] encouraging the crowd to do what a few did [the FBI is know for doing this by the way]. I wasn't a fan of Trump's personal behavior but the MSM edited what he said to portray him as a bad person once he became President.

Thanks for this fascinating glimpse into the Trumper mind.

BTW, aren't you glad he is fully cooperating with the committee, and doesn't have lawyers suing to stop them from finding out what he did/said that night?

 

[Bowlmania]

Thanks for this fascinating glimpse into the Trumper mind.

BTW, aren't you glad he is fully cooperating with the committee, and doesn't have lawyers suing to stop them from finding out what he did/said that night?

I love that one of Team Trump's arguments is that release of documents pertaining to Jan 6 would be damaging to the institution of the presidency. Like Trump gives a shit about anything but himself.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I love that one of Team Trump's arguments is that release of documents pertaining to Jan 6 would be damaging to the institution of the presidency. Like Trump gives a shit about anything but himself.

And the federal court curb-stomped Trump's claim of executive privilege. His strategy will be to try and stall this in court until after the 2022 elections when/if the House returns to GOP control.

 

[Noodle]

I love that one of Team Trump's arguments is that release of documents pertaining to Jan 6 would be damaging to the institution of the presidency. Like Trump gives a shit about anything but himself.

He's basically arguing "you think I disgraced the presidency? Well you don't know the half of it."

 

[Lucy01]

He's basically arguing "you think I disgraced the presidency? Well you don't know the half of it."

Get over it, Trump is not President. The days of cheap Energy and no inflation are gone. Time to think about those Racist highways😳

 

[Bowlmania]

Get over it, Trump is not President. The days of cheap Energy and no inflation are gone. Time to think about those Racist highways😳

Get a life, Lucy. Your posts are a waste of time and space.

 

[Lucy01]

Get a life, Lucy. Your posts are a waste of time and space.

So says the football expert 🤣

 

[UncleMark]

And the federal court curb-stomped Trump's claim of executive privilege. His strategy will be to try and stall this in court until after the 2022 elections when/if the House returns to GOP control.

If I'm Biden I'm ordering the Archives to release the documents immediately, none of this waiting until Friday out of courtesy bullshit.

 

[UncleMark]

If I'm Biden I'm ordering the Archives to release the documents immediately, none of this waiting until Friday out of courtesy bullshit.

Too late.

Appeals court grants Trump delay in releasing records to Jan. 6 probe

A federal appeals court granted Trump's request to temporarily halt the release of White House records to lawmakers investigating the deadly Capitol invasion.

www.cnbc.com

I'll give him credit, Trump is the Master at tying things up in never ending litigation to run out the clock.