[costello]

The first lawsuit has been filed in the Colorado shooting. James Holmes' doctors are included among the defendants.

...

Brown's other two claims are perhaps more novel. First, Brown sued Holmes' doctors claiming that they did not carefully monitor the medication that he was on. The argument is that the doctors should have foreseen Holmes' violent tendencies and made sure he was not skipping his medication. It's not clear what specific drugs Holmes was on or what mental issues he had.

...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/201...l?DCMP=CCX-FBC

I seriously hope this fails. If pdocs are to be held responsible for the actions of their patients, I think we'll see even more forced medication.

[costello]

Btw, here's the first sentence from the above linked article (my bolding):

"The first lawsuit from the Colorado shooting has been filed by an uninjured man."

He may not have any physical injuries, but I imagine the psychic injury is deep and probably life-long. Interesting that we so easily dismiss psychological and emotional injuries.

If he someday injures someone else due to the trauma he suffered, I wonder if it will be his pdoc's fault?

[missbelle]

Patients leave out things when they talk to their Pdoc. I do not think the pdoc could have forseen what happened

[fishsandwich]

I am impressed by America's ability to turn mass shootings with completely legal assault weaponry into . . . not debates about gun control, but reasons to take even more rights away from people with mental illness. Astounding.

I think in England, that case would get thrown out. We do allow for psychiatric injury claims in tort, but . . . against the cinema and the people who produced the film? No. Those are not the proper defendants.

I'm not sure how the doctor thing would play out -- over here, it's really ****ing hard to sue the NHS because it's state-funded (trust me, I know :P ). I honestly hope it doesn't work, as that would be-simply put-a terrible precedent. I wonder what the "violent tendencies" were, anyway?

[fishsandwich]

I'm also sick of the big rush to find every mad killer's psychiatrist and find a label to make him "crazy" so he's "not like us". Dude, psych labels are terrible, but they CERTAINLY should not be dumping grounds for everybody we fear and hate.

We live in countries where pharmaceutical companies spend billions to get every last person onto some psych drugs . . . and where 1/4 of the population is on psych drugs at some point. It's highly likely that you could pull any random person - mass murderers included - and find some psych history for them.

[costello]

Originally Posted by missbelle

Patients leave out things when they talk to their Pdoc. I do not think the pdoc could have forseen what happened

Yeah, predicting violence isn't really possible. And monitoring medication usage? Clearly the person filing the lawsuit hasn't lived with a person determined not to take medication!

[Trippin2.0]

Pure BS IMO. Pdocs are not Mary Poppins who live with you singing 'just a spoonful of suga makes the medicine go down'... Their responsibility begins at the start of your appt and ends when you leave. If this suit does go anywhere, I can so see the lot of us going for mandatory shots...

[costello]

Originally Posted by fishsandwich

I am impressed by America's ability to turn mass shootings with completely legal assault weaponry into . . . not debates about gun control, but reasons to take even more rights away from people with mental illness. Astounding.

Yep. You can order 6000+ rounds of ammunition off the internet without raising any red flags, but not alarming the exit door makes the theater liable.

As far as I know kids all over America use this feature of movie theaters to help their friends sneak in to the movie for free, and they have done for decades.

I think in England, that case would get thrown out. We do allow for psychiatric injury claims in tort, but . . . against the cinema and the people who produced the film? No. Those are not the proper defendants.

I don't think the suit against the movie producer will go anywhere. The suit against the theater has more of a chance in my view. It's nonsense, but they might convince a jury - especially if the jury feels motivated to give the victims damages and there's no one else with deep pockets. Maybe it'll never get past the judge. I hope so. I really don't want to live in a world with more alarms and gated entries. We already live in a paranoid culture in my view. All the security to protect us from very rare events.

I don't think there's any precedent that says a pdoc has a duty to the general public from a person who may become violent. There is a duty to warn a specific person if a patient makes statements that he or she will injure or kill that person.

I wonder what the "violent tendencies" were, anyway?

I'm trying not to follow the story, because I'm finding the coverage and public reaction to be distressing, but I heard in passing on the radio something about his mailing a package of some sort to the school and that he was under psychiatric care.

[Perna]

The person is not just suing the pdoc, he's suing everyone; the theater, Warner Brothers, etc. His best friend was killed; shot in the chest. It's to be expected; people can't deal with their anger/grief so they lash out.

[Trippin2.0]

Angers understandable. My brother was slaughtered like an animal for no apparant reason, BUT, shouldn't 1 of us in these scenarios be rational? If not, I'd like to sue the Liberian govt for not ensuring his safety, his butler for answering the door, and the Chinese govt for letting 2 murderers out of their country! Just saying

[costello]

Originally Posted by Perna

The person is not just suing the pdoc, he's suing everyone; the theater, Warner Brothers, etc. His best friend was killed; shot in the chest. It's to be expected; people can't deal with their anger/grief so they lash out.

Yeah, I saw that he was suing everyone. I guess I'm more cynical than you, Perna. I notice he (actually his attorney) is suing everyone with deep pockets. I didn't see James Holmes' name on the list of defendants. He's actually the only one responsible here. But he has no money.

[costello]

Originally Posted by Trippin2.0

Angers understandable. My brother was slaughtered like an animal for no apparant reason, BUT, shouldn't 1 of us in these scenarios be rational? If not, I'd like to sue the Liberian govt for not ensuring his safety, his butler for answering the door, and the Chinese govt for letting 2 murderers out of their country! Just saying

Sometimes there's no legal remedy. We have to find peace some other way.

[Trippin2.0]

I doubt money heals anyway.

[costello]

Originally Posted by Trippin2.0

I doubt money heals anyway.

Money can get you treatment and support you if you can no longer support yourself due to your injuries, but it probably won't heal you. That's a spiritual or psychic journey.

My condolences on the loss of your brother, Trippin.

[Trippin2.0]

No worries Costello, but thanks. I wasn't feeling bad, just trying to make a point with personal experiences.

[Perna]

It's a nice country; it lets you try to win such a suit, if you want to give lawyers the money, free country. It is probably too broad/won't go very far, especially since neither he nor his family were physically hurt. No one can be held responsible for what you see/feel in response to a stimulus or this guy might not be allowed to go to the movies or cross a city street ever again? Filing a suit does not mean it will go anywhere; I imagine the lawyer made him give money up front to file and/or is wanting the exposure/notoriety.

[fishsandwich]

Originally Posted by costello

Yep. You can order 6000+ rounds of ammunition off the internet without raising any red flags, but not alarming the exit door makes the theater liable.

I just don't even try to understand this. I love rifle sports and even used to own a gun back home (it got taken away with the dx ), but never once have I thought that it would be useful or fun (or indeed, freedom-inducing) to have that amount and variety of weaponry.

Originally Posted by costello

As far as I know kids all over America use this feature of movie theaters to help their friends sneak in to the movie for free, and they have done for decades.

That's the only good thing about cinemas, IMO Especially when you can see all the films online for free (illegally) they day they're released, anyway.

Well, that and popcorn. I have this fabulous mental taste of cinema popcorn, but actually when I get it IRL I'm always disappointed.

Originally Posted by costello

I don't think the suit against the movie producer will go anywhere. The suit against the theater has more of a chance in my view. It's nonsense, but they might convince a jury - especially if the jury feels motivated to give the victims damages and there's no one else with deep pockets. Maybe it'll never get past the judge. I hope so. I really don't want to live in a world with more alarms and gated entries. We already live in a paranoid culture in my view. All the security to protect us from very rare events.

I hope it doesn't get to the jury . . . because I think in a jury trial, it would win. Is CO a state where they have civil/tort trials by jury?

I'd be alarmed by any decision that indicates public places have a duty of care so high that they have to that active steps to prevent this kind of thing.

Originally Posted by costello

I don't think there's any precedent that says a pdoc has a duty to the general public from a person who may become violent. There is a duty to warn a specific person if a patient makes statements that he or she will injure or kill that person.

No, and what a ridiculous precedent it would be. Over here, a pdoc has to inform the police (and possibly social services) if they think somebody is going to harm themselves or others, but the duty ends at that point. I doubt damages have ever been awarded for a doc who failed to do that, though.
Is it the same situation over there? If it were -- and if the pdoc had some forewarning that the fellow was thinking about doing something violent -- then I could see a small amount of damages awarded.

Originally Posted by costello

I'm trying not to follow the story, because I'm finding the coverage and public reaction to be distressing, but I heard in passing on the radio something about his mailing a package of some sort to the school and that he was under psychiatric care.

Everybody is under psychiatric care these days. And using the postal service?? When did that become a sign of a severe case of the violent crazies?
I despair whenever something like this happens. Growing up, my best friend's cousin was killed in a school shooting up in Canada. It was really tough for her and I remember how devastating it was (and remains) for everyone involved, so I really feel for the victims. But I'm so sick of the immediate public outcry being about how mentally ill the person must have been. It is literally the only time that mental illness gets any press, and it just makes life even more unbearable for the rest of us nutters.

[fishsandwich]

Originally Posted by costello

Yeah, I saw that he was suing everyone. I guess I'm more cynical than you, Perna. I notice he (actually his attorney) is suing everyone with deep pockets. I didn't see James Holmes' name on the list of defendants. He's actually the only one responsible here. But he has no money.

I love New Zealand's centralised tort compensation scheme for exactly this reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acciden...on_Corporation

It wouldn't cover this scenario in particular, but it does often stop non-liable parties from getting sued just because they happen to have money.

[fishsandwich]

Originally Posted by Perna

It's a nice country; it lets you try to win such a suit, if you want to give lawyers the money, free country. It is probably too broad/won't go very far, especially since neither he nor his family were physically hurt. No one can be held responsible for what you see/feel in response to a stimulus or this guy might not be allowed to go to the movies or cross a city street ever again? Filing a suit does not mean it will go anywhere; I imagine the lawyer made him give money up front to file and/or is wanting the exposure/notoriety.

I'm too lazy to go look up the right laws, but in the US you can sue for psychiatric injury when you were in the immediate physical "harm zone". That is, if you're in the area when a tort occurs, and you experience emotional distress or fear for your own life and safety (sometimes, for the life and safety of your immediate family members) -- usually resulting in PTSD -- then you're covered.

Some states require that you also be physically injured, others do not -- I'm not sure what the law in CO is. Anybody feeling less lazy than I am?

ETA: And I'm willing to bet that this case is taken on a no-win, no-fee basis . . . or even pro-bono. Whatever the lawyer gets paid, he's going to be a bigshot "nice guy" who "helped" the victims of this horrible tragedy. That is extremely good for his business.

[fishsandwich]

Also, as I was searching the law in Colorado, I came across an article in Fox (where else) that said that "Colorado shooting is proof that psychiatry -- not guns -- needs fixing". Of course, what else would that vile site argue? But it set me off crying so I'm not going to look anymore.

[costello]

Originally Posted by Perna

It's a nice country; it lets you try to win such a suit, if you want to give lawyers the money, free country.

It also impels other people to hire attorneys to defend themselves.

I imagine the lawyer made him give money up front to file and/or is wanting the exposure/notoriety.

It seems more likely the attorney is working on contingency. I imagine everyone who was inside that theater during the shooting has been contacted by multiple attorneys hoping to make a lot of money on this.

I think that anyone with legitimate injuries should be able to sue anyone who legitimately injures them.

[fishsandwich]

Do you think psychiatric injury is a legitimate injury then?

[costello]

Originally Posted by fishsandwich

I hope it doesn't get to the jury . . . because I think in a jury trial, it would win. Is CO a state where they have civil/tort trials by jury?

I don't know. Probably.

I'd be alarmed by any decision that indicates public places have a duty of care so high that they have to that active steps to prevent this kind of thing.

Me too. Those theaters, if any, which have such alarms didn't put them there to protect the audience from attack. It's purely a theft prevention device. The library I work in has such alarms on its doors in order to prevent people from exiting with our materials. It isn't there to prevent people from entering and attacking our patrons.

Is it the same situation over there? If it were -- and if the pdoc had some forewarning that the fellow was thinking about doing something violent -- then I could see a small amount of damages awarded.

I don't know of any such requirement.

And using the postal service?? When did that become a sign of a severe case of the violent crazies?

I believe the implication was that the package contained an explosive or other dangerous material.

Growing up, my best friend's cousin was killed in a school shooting up in Canada. It was really tough for her and I remember how devastating it was (and remains) for everyone involved, so I really feel for the victims. But I'm so sick of the immediate public outcry being about how mentally ill the person must have been. It is literally the only time that mental illness gets any press, and it just makes life even more unbearable for the rest of us nutters.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by fishsandwich

I just don't even try to understand this. I love rifle sports and even used to own a gun back home (it got taken away with the dx ), but never once have I thought that it would be useful or fun (or indeed, freedom-inducing) to have that amount and variety of weaponry.

My thought is that it is the paranoia against anything "government" that animates many, including the leadership of the National Rifle Association. They want to have a sufficient arsenal of weapons to successfully hold off the armed forces of the United States -- or at least the marauders that they envision sprouting up when the country disintegrates. Of course, the marauders would be well armed too!

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by fishsandwich

"Colorado shooting is proof that psychiatry -- not guns -- needs fixing".

Psychiatry does need fixing!