Waukegan radio station WXLC is being sued after having women compete to go on a date with a “great guy” Travis Harvey, 46. The radio station did not mention that Harvey had been convicted of violating an order for protection. He has now pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the “winner” in the contest, a 24-year-old who went on the date in February 2007.
The rape victim is charging that the Delaware-based NextMedia, the parent company of WXLC, should have done a background check on the man they were promoting as a “great guy. Had they done so, they would have learned that Harvey was convicted in March 2006 of misdemeanor and felony charges for violating a domestic battery order of protection.
The liability for such contests has been well-established. In Weirum v. RKO, the court held that the Real Don Steele and RKO Corp. were liable for a contest where teenagers would speed to find the Real Don at various locations. When a third party was injured by speeding teens, the court allowed recovery.
This case should be easier on a legal level. This is a straight negligence claim — not a vicarious liability claim as in Weirum. The promotion of a man “as a great guy” adds to the liability base. The fact that he is a felon might not be negligent in itself if the crime was for taxes or some other non-violent offense. However, the fact that it was a protection order is obviously relevant and should have disqualified him from the promotion. It will be interesting to see if the radio program even inquired as to the person’s history. This should be an interesting case to watch develop.
For the full story, click here.
Given that the women who regularly post on this blog far exceed the ‘national average feminine cognitive skills quotient’, what character of woman would participate in such a radio (read: aural not visual) “dating game”?
Isn’t the woman partially responsible for her actions through agreeing to the “game”? To be sure, I am not saying she was asking for anything; however, she went out with a complete stranger. I simply do not understand why any straight thinking (no pun) woman would put herself in such a risky situation based on other strangers’ statements that he was a “great guy.”
“From now on, all of my friends are gonna’ be strangers…” is a decent honky-tonk song, although not the best means of finding a decent date.
Flattery will get you nowhere!:) Any person, male or female might have considered doing this for fun. The woman only agreed to go on a date with a man she was assured was a “great guy”. If she would have agreed to go out with someone who “beat up his last girlfriend” you could have an argument, but there would be no reason for her to believe this man would harm her. It is a reasonable expectation that a radio station would have looked into whether this man really was a “great guy” before entering him into the contest as such. The fact that he was being promoted by a radio station makes him less of a stranger than answering a personal ad- which people do that all the time. I just don’t see how a woman should have expected any violence from engaging in this contest. The worse that should have happened is they didn’t like each other and they ended the date early.
Do you really believe that the radio station’s declaration that he was “a great guy” is really relevant? Would a reasonable person consider what is said on a morning show to be credible or even reliable? As much as I think this radio show dropped the ball, I don’t think they are any more liable than a match.com or a speed dating program.
2L, MN:
Well Sir, that might simply be because you are *just* a 2L–from MN, no less–and not a legal scholar, nor no high-falutin’ tenured academician. However, by reading this blog, you are most likely to gain the KSAs to gain acceptance to–and become entrenched in–one or both of those coveted Ivory Tower positions, someday maybe.
Of course, and from my post, I completely agree with your 2L ‘legal’ assessment.
Do you guys really think the woman should have had an expectation of violence in this situation? I just don’t get that. There’s a difference between believing the man’s going to absolutely fantastic (not realistic) and thinking that he will be violent. This was supposed to be a ridiculous meet up. Ridiculous doesn’t include violent. Why do you think she should have had the expectation of violence just because it was a morning radio show? I’m asking this seriously.
Harvey’s attorney, Greg Nikitas has said that the station’s morning show was attempting to find a date for Harvey because he was a single father and too busy for the dating scene. He was promoted on the air and on the station’s Web site as being “kind” and a “great guy.”
According to the suits, Harvey drugged the victim before raping her.
_____________________________________________________________________
Here’s the report. A busy dad who was kind and a great guy. How does one reasonably go from that description to, this guy will drug and rape me and he has a record of violence. Why is the onus being put on the woman here? This is sounding a lot like “she asked for it” when instead the real story is, “this man raped this woman”.
Ouch. Somebody’s a little condescending…
Let me rephrase my post since I don’t think I was stating what I wrote as legal fact or even conclusive. I was actually attempting to inquire whether or not the radio station’s assertion that he’s a great guy could be considered a reliable claim worthy of a basis in a negligence case. Do reasonable people consider what a radio station says about a stranger to be accurate? Would they believe that someone on the show has been screened or at least asked if they had previous felonies? I’ll have to find the citation, but I know that dating sites have been cleared of liability in cases such as this. I’m just looking for what is legally different between the radio station and what a dating service might offer.
2L,
I wasn’t being condescending and I think you know that. Based on what you wrote earlier I was asking you your honest asessment of this situation. I cannot answer the legal question, although I think the original post does touch on that. As to the rest of it I will leave intact my original question based on your original post.
Well, there goes that theory, FFLEO!
But your point is still well taken. Personally, I have never been set up on a ‘blind date’ much less ever considered entering a dating contest or answering a personal ad.
I know a few women who have and were smart enough to meet for coffee or lunch at a busy, familiar, place during the day and even had a friend call on their cell to check in.
The radio station is negligent. There representation was ‘misleading’ at best.
Jill: I don’t in any way think that this is a “she asked for it” situation. But you’re suggesting that the on-air assertion that he’s a great guy is a legal warranty that he won’t be a creep or commit a violent act. How much control does the radio station have over the Defendant after the initial meeting?
Jill, my condescending statement was to FFLEO not you. You posted as I was writing.
2L, MN,
Those parts of my comments were tongue-in-cheek. I do not possess the legal standing to be condescending regarding such matters. I think you noticed that I aimed my flippant, jocular jab both high and low. Welcome to the blog, if you are new.
Jill,
Men = Mars; Women = Venus?
Men and women must all be responsible for their actions and decisions. Obviously, the woman was likely in no way legally culpable in this situation; however, what about morally?
Patty C.
Thanks, I think!
The one blind date I had in my life was more than forty years ago. A double date set up by a “friend,” who drove. The girl was the spitting image of Nikita Kruschev’s wife, not good if you’re not old enough to remember, and was stupid to the extremes. However, I was trapped and so treated her kindly for the entire evening. no, for those of you of foul mind I didn’t have sex with despite the rage of my teenage hormones. I never went out on another blind date, though.
In general, beyond my personal experience, most people I know have had bad blind date experiences. This is commonly known I think. Nevertheless, the human heart craves companionship and in all of us hope springs eternal(cliche, I know but it makes the point)and it no doubt did in this woman. Many women today find the dating arena barren, not because men are generally cads, but many men have been too influenced by the false propaganda of the macho beer and football commercialism that affects their interaction with women. A radio station, even with a morning zoo, is generally considered a responsible public institution. She relied on their statement that he was a “great guy” and her reliance was reasonable to the extent that a sexual assault shouldn’t have been part of the equation. I think the station should be liable for the injury she suffered.
For FFLeo’s benefit, while I only made it through 2 & 1/2 years at St. John’s Law School (night), I did get a B in Torts and slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
F F LEO
Will you please expound on this: “Obviously, the woman was likely in no way legally culpable in this situation; however what about morally?”
I don’t understand the implication. Thank-you.
FFLEO,
I echo CEJ’s question and I asked you mine first, so answer up!!!
Jill & CEJ,
I am, uh, er, busy right now, so in the interim, perhaps a bright legal mind, one of those who frequent this forum or the guy who runs this blog, will try to explain what I mean.
CEJ, are you a male, because I quality control my comments and segregate my best answers according to the respondents’ gender…Just Kidding!!
FFLEO,
You are trying to squirm out of this with a pseudoresponse. Man up and tell CEJ and me how it came to pass that this woman is legally and or morally rsponsible for being drugged and raped by this man. Should she be put in jail for her crimes or say confession for her sin? Answer my other questions.
If gender will help in getting a response I am a man called Jill (per Johnny Cash)!
Jill,
I liked the Johnny Cash reference. I cannot understand how the station is not liable for setting this woman up with such a “nice guy”. Legally or morally. I don’t remember ever going on a blind date, but my Mom had one when we were young. Of course, he was blind and we kept referring to him as her blind date. On second thought, I guess you had to be there for that joke.
Okay Jill and CEJ,
“Lake County Assistant State’s Attorney Ken LaRue said there is no physical evidence the woman was drugged; he said she did not report the incident to police until five days after the date when tests would no longer be valid”
Any person who is a victim of a crime such as sexual assault (still called rape in some jurisdictions) has a moral obligation to report the crime as soon as possible. I do not know what the legal ramifications of this are, if any, in such cases, but I know a citizen has an obligation to report any crime. In this case, the woman waited 5 days to report the abuse and the abuser only admitted to fondling her (according to the reports). That late reporting is most likely why he received some probation. Without prompt reporting, these cases become he said/ she said instances. The evidence, other than relevant to this specific class of sexual assault, which is a broad term, is just not there for a more severe charge and sentence, which might have been appropriate in this instance.
The guy was, of course, the only criminally guilty party, but the assault happened on the “second” unsupervised date and the woman deviated from the established protocol of meeting at a concert that the radio station had arranged. The woman is responsible for deciding to change plans to go the person’s house and put herself at some risk with a stranger. Therefore, given the woman’s change in the agreed upon ‘dating plan’, the station seems less legally culpable in any responsibility of what transpired in the guy’s home.
Finally, I must admit, I just do not understand anyone who needs to go to an online dating service or play a dating contest to get a date.
FFLEO,
Thanks for responding. There was a criminal case against Mr. Gurnee which ended in below:
“In Lake County Court, Harvey, 46, of Gurnee, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the 24-year-old Fox Lake woman while they were on a date in February 2007. He was sentenced to two years probation and 12 months periodic imprisonment.”
There is currently a civil case, with a great deal of information attached that has yet to be sorted out. Because the rules of evidence are less strict for civil trials we should be able to get the information eventually. For example, there are reports that Mr. Gurnee initiated the “contest” by calling the station saying he was having trouble finding dates. If a stranger calls a radio station to propose this type of thing I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect the radio station to check the person out before going forward with the “contest”.
I would like to address the underlying assumptions in your response. One of these is that women should just expect violence from men and it is the woman’s fault that she was attacked because she, “put herself at some risk with a stranger”. Going over to someone’s house isn’t an invitation to be raped or abused in any way. The only person responsible for the assult was Mr. Gurnee, who in fact plead guilty to the offense.
Another assumption is that when a woman is raped she should be able to immediately report the rape to authorities. This just doesn’t square with reality. Rape is a physical, psychological and spiritual violation of one person by another. Some people (men and women) report their rape years later. For example, men and women raped by priests have only come forward with their stories years or decades later due to shame and guilt they feel over having been raped. The idea that women “ask for it” or are somehow to blame is quite current in this society. It is still a difficult climate to report being raped. Five days to pull your shit together and report having been raped doesn’t seem very long to me and would certainly fall under the idea of “as soon as possible”.
Finally whether you understand why anyone would go to a dating service or contest to find a date isn’t relevant to what happened here. It doesn’t erase the reality of the woman’s rape and the immense harm that was done to this woman.
From the BBC,
“UN urges end to abuses of women
A 10year old girl who was raped waits for medical treatment in Goma, DRC (24/11/2008)
The UN says one in five women will be subject to actual or attempted rape
The United Nations secretary general has said the world must do more to combat the abuse of women and girls.
Ban Ki-moon spoke as organisations around the world marked the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
The UN says at least one in three women will be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
It has called on leaders and people around the world to address what it said was a “global pandemic” of abuse.
Women between the ages of 15 and 44 are at greater risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, traffic accidents, war and malaria, says the UN.
It says violence against women has been reported in every international or non-international warzone and that half of all women murdered are killed by their current or former partner.
Violence against women is never acceptable
Ban Ki-moon
UN Secretary General
Mr Ban said such violations “undermine the development, peace and security of entire societies”.
“We need to do more to enforce laws and counter impunity,” said Mr Ban, who has his own campaign, UNiTE, to address the issue.
“We need to combat attitudes and behaviours that condone, tolerate, excuse or ignore violence committed against women.”
Actually most women are abused by people they know ie; husbands, long term boyfriends. Being pregnant increses the risk of being abused by 25%. So, if we are blaming women for the abuse they suffer we must say that the most culpable women are those who get married and further, become pregnant.
‘We’ were commenting on the criminal case and on the facts presented here in the articles – I thought.
He was convicted of ‘criminal sexual abuse’ not ‘rape’. He admitted to ‘fondling’ and probably had to plead it out given his record.
And FFLEO’s morally culpable question goes to the plaintiff’s decision to agree to have dinner at defendant’s home, which also turned out to be nothing more than a frozen pizza, instead of dinner at the House of Blues previously agreed to and arranged BY the radio station.
If that had been me, I would have said ‘If you’re that tired, maybe another time would be better! And that probably would have been it.
It was not only a dumb mistake, but incredibly naive for the station not to do a simple background check. They have even MORE of a duty to to check this guy out, if he is the one initiating the contest particularly if no one there even knew him or would vouch for his integrity as ‘a great guy’.
******
Criminal Sexual Abuse 720 ILCS 5/12-15
(a) The accused commits criminal sexual abuse if he or she:
(1) commits an act of sexual conduct by the use of force or threat of force; or
(2) commits an act of sexual conduct and the accused knew that the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent.
******
This is not the best case for jumping on the soapbox, I’m sorry to say.
I hope this woman recovers, and all women, become pro-active and learn to how to be a little smarter, more discerning, and protect themselves much better.
http://abajournal.com/news/woman_wins_date_then_sues_radio_station/
Add this link to my comment above…
FFLEO and all – Jill has no authority here.
She is certainly not a lawyer, has no legal training .that I am aware of, mor have been able to ascertain over several months. She is ignorant on many subjects minus most ‘established’ religions, yet claims to be an ardent athiest, herself – go figure.
AND she LOVES alien stories – especially in Texas – whew!
My analysis – ‘Whacko’ from West Virginia…
As I stated previously minus the following link to ABA:
http://abajournal.com/news/woman_wins_date_then_sues_radio_station/
‘We’were commenting on the criminal case and on the facts presented here in the articles, I thought.
He was convicted of ‘criminal sexual abuse’ not ‘rape.
He admitted to ‘fondling’ and probably had to plead it out given his record.
And FFLEO’s morally culpable question goes to the plaintiff’s decision to agree to have dinner at defendant’s home, which also turned out to be nothing more than a frozen pizza, instead of dinner at the House of Blues previously agreed to and arranged BY the radio station.
If that had been me, I would have said ‘If you’re that tired, maybe another time would be better!’ And that probably would have been ‘IT’!
It was not only a dumb mistake, but incredibly naive for the station not to do a simple background check.
They have even MORE of a duty to to check this guy out, if he is the one initiating the contest, particularly if no one there
even knew him, or would vouch for his integrity as ‘a great guy’.
******
Criminal Sexual Abuse 720 ILCS 5/12-15
(a) The accused commits criminal sexual abuse if he or she:
(1) commits an act of sexual conduct by the use of force or threat of force; or
(2) commits an act of sexual conduct and the accused knew that the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent.
******
This is not the best case for jumping on the soapbox, Jill, I’m sorry to say.
I hope this woman recovers and that all women become pro-active and learn to how to be a little smarter, more discerning,
and protect themselves much better.
.
Patty,
Far be it for me to jump into the middle of a (one sided) cat fight, but since most of your complaints about Jill also apply to me, I thought I’d defend her (and myself). After that I’ll stay out of the fray, I promise.
One doesn’t need any legal training to discuss the societal impact of laws, nor to just have an opinion. I have no problem with someone who doesn’t know everything there is to know about a subject commenting on it, as long as they admit their ignorance. Anyway most of the discussions that I’ve seen on this blog don’t center around legal specifics, but around the implications of various political, legal, and moral philosophies. Those tend to be the ones that Jill takes place in.
As far as the Atheist thing goes, perhaps she (like a lot of the atheists I know) studied the various religions trying to find one that rang true.
The thing that drew me to start commenting here (this is the only site I generally even READ the comments, let alone comment myself) is the civil and thoughtful discussions that go on, even when people vehemently disagree with each other. The exception being your comments towards Jill. If you really find her so abhorrent, may I suggest just not reading her responses? Since you’re going to dismiss her opinion out of hand anyway, it seems that it would save you a little trouble.
I will reply again when the case is settled. About all I can add now is that I wager WXLC will not be running another ‘dating game’ even if the plaintiff receives a less than completely favorable decision.
Gyges,
I disagree with your ‘position’ and my remarks were not aimed toward you or others withouta legal background. Jill ‘weighs in’ on many complex legal issues where it’s apparent she doesn’t know what she is talking about.
Since I precede Jill as one of the few women who blog here regularly, I’d like to say that Jill does not speak for me, nor many of my girlfriends, on most issues from politics to child-rearing
- which is how FFLEO led with his comment about female ‘turlee’ cognitive skills and dating.
And I HAVE stopped reading most of Jill’s posts because while I am tough in many ways, I, like you, am also quite sensitive, as well.
I couldn’t do what I do if I wasn’t both.
However, I don’t appreciate being imposed upon, outside of a health-care setting, with her persistent angst and hand-wringing, frankly. I find her negativity about the state of our nation ‘mood-altering’. And pardon me for volunteering my opinion, you would do well to stop enabling her dysfunctional mindset.
‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.’
~Henry J. Tillman