Comments on: “Newark must pay $4.1 million for missteps in student’s death”

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:39:33 +0000

While I must agree with Ted’s comment about the incentives created by the reasoning of this ruling, I would like to remind people that the government has made its bed on this one…

(I’m thinking of the repeated cases where the government srews up BIG TIME and suffers no consequences – think of that case with the women who were raped, called 911, the police came and left, they got raped some more, etc)

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:24:30 +0000

I am surprised that the family did not sue the University for accepting their daughter as a student. And how about the SAT people?

Judges have to provide reasons for their rulings. It is up to the people of New Jersey to shame judges when they are so blatantly stupid.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:07:09 +0000

The story's account appears incomplete. Massachi was killed with a bullet to the head in a murder-suicide when police did respond (waiting an hour for backup to arrive before entering after hearing the gunshots), so causation is highly highly questionable, even if one ignores the problem of third-party liability for crime. (The security company didn't act because the crime didn't happen on campus.) How does the city get held liable for a police omission? Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), shut down federal causes of action, though it's conceivable New Jersey state law differs. Here's how: the New Jersey appellate court held "Once the city made a decision to hire 911 operators and provide them with specific procedural regulations governing the manner in which they must respond to calls, then the negligent performance of those 911 operators is not entitled to immunity." And if a city doesn't have 911 operators or procedural regulations, then it doesn't have liability. Guess what incentives this creates?