MIDDLETOWN — This could be the easiest line-up that the Middletown, Ohio police ever put on. Michelle Allen, 32, was arrested after allegedly chasing children and urinating on a front porch in her neighborhood. She was easy to spot. She was wearing a cow outfit.
Not surprisingly, the police suspect alcohol was involved. This is not surprising since she is dressed specifically as a Holstein, a breed known for its drinking and vandalism.
For the full story, click here
Lindy Lou:
Guns were not brandished in the home, only physical acts. The kids lived at varying distances from home, and my client’s son was about 3-4 miles away from his house. On the escape issue, it was a public street in a residential neighborhood, but no way to tell if the kids could have effectively retreated to some place of safety given the late hour. Alcohol may have been present but was not a factor. Virginia is fairly Draconian on dram shop liability even when it pertains to minors and there is no real likelihood of recovery there given the state of existing law.
Man (and Ladies) you guys are good with these questions. Most never occurred to me. Now I know why JT does this blog!! (Well, ok I already knew but Wow!)
Hi Mespo,
If I were on a jury for this case I’d want to know when the parents first knew guns were involved. How far did these kids have to get home. Was the party house isolated? Were there multiple “escape” routes or were the kids relatively cornered?
As Patty points out, was alcohol a factor? Did the parents hear threats? My gosh, it took Virginia until 2006 to get a law on the books regarding giving alcohol to groups of minors?!!
There was a big case here about a year ago about an underage drinking party. I don’t know how the case turned out. I want to say these parents got socked, but I don’t think they did.
November 14 2007
Police: Underage Party Near Waunakee Became 5-Hour Standoff
Complaint: Partygoers Hid From Police In Shed
WAUNAKEE, Wis. — An underage drinking party that drew 50 to 70 young people turned into a standoff at a farm shed, with teenagers barricaded inside for about five hours, refusing calls by police and their parents to come out, authorities said.
Officials said some of the teens intimidated others by wielding a sledgehammer, axe and rifle and insisted that no one should leave because anyone who did would be ticketed, including members of the Waunakee High School football team.
In a criminal complaint, a person who was in the shed said there were no outward threats of violence but it was “implied that if someone attempted to leave, something may happen to them.”
The criminal complaint filed in Dane County Circuit Court said sheriff’s deputies arrived at the farm residence of Daniel and Jacklyn Kaltenberg in the town of Westport early Sept. 30, just after midnight, in response to a report of an underage drinking party.
Mojo:
I am never ashamed to help victims,and your naive belief that no one should anticipate violence by young aggressive males simply flies into the face of all notions of sociology or the common experience of anyone who lives in society today. Jurisprudence does not simply stop developing because we no longer live in the Victorian era when the sense of the time was that bad things just don’t happen or if they do you ignore them. Interestingly enough, the devastated parents don’t find this frivolous and have expressed to me on many occasions that they want to pursue this to make sure it won’t happen to another family. Providing incentives to deter this type of irresponsibility does not see frivolous to me either. Money has never even been mentioned in any conversation I have had with them.
This is so sad that this is where law is going today. Mespo, you should be ashamed for even considering this suit. Nobody who is having a birthday party for their sixteen-year-old should have to expect gun violence. The idea that these parents should have anticipated a correct response is absurd.
No more birthday parties, eh?
How were they to have known these kids were ‘packing’?
Has the world gone mad?
Start working on laws to limit easy access to guns would be a much more noble effort than trying to stick people with another frivolous lawsuit.
mespo.
You didn’t mention there being alcohol at this party and it may now matter in Virginia, however from reading this 2006 WaPo article, perhaps an argument could be made that the intent of the legislature is to hold parents responsible as hosts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062802070.html
A Virginia law aimed at cracking down on underage drinking parties takes effect Saturday, making it illegal for adults to serve alcohol to youths in their homes.
The purpose of the bill, which the General Assembly passed overwhelmingly and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) signed this spring, is to discourage adults from allowing teenagers to consume alcohol in or near their homes. Those who violate the law will face a misdemeanor charge and a fine.
“This would require more personal responsibility from parents,” said Del. Brian J. Moran (D-Alexandria), the bill’s chief sponsor…”
The boy that was shot and killed had a right to a reasonable expectation of caution and supervision by the adults owners of the home to which he had been invited. The parents were the owners of the home, hence the facilitators of this gathering of minors.
The parents failed to provide a reasonable level of security and supervision of the boy who got killed when they knowingly and willingly banished him from their home into the street along with these violent teens who had crashed the party. Had they provided the boy and the other children with reasonable shelter in their home while they awaited the police and the violent teens forced their way in and shot him thats one thing. Or if the parents had ordered the violent teens to leave and they refused to and shot the boy then, then at least they had attempted to provide a reasonable level of security for this under age minor who they had accepted a reasonable expectation of responsiblity for when they invited him to their home. When they banished him and the other children from their home in the middle of a violent confrontation by violent teens who were not supposed to be there, sending them all into the street they were not being reasonably prudent and not taking reasonable precautions for the safety and security of their under age guests.
I’m not big on suits, but I think the parents here, based on what I’ve heard, showed an amazing lack of judgement and concern for the safety of the minors they invited to their home and I think the parents of the murdered boy have a reasonable claim, because theres a reasonable expectation that adults will act responsibly when their children are in their homes. And the parents stopped acting responsibly when they made the decision to send these kids into the street in the middle of a violent situation. They made the decision IN their house, so the decision was negligence on their part, in their home. The defense can argue they didn’t know what was going to happen but most adults would know that the potential for injury to one or more youth by sending them into the street was a distinct posibility if not probability, so I don’t think its a good defense.
The parents did not act responsible. They instead helped fuel the sitution and did not provide a reasonable level of supervision or safety for the children they invited when they removed the security of their home during the middle of a violent confrontation.
Anyway thats how I see it.
rafflaw:
No purely a social function with no fee and hence no commercial purpose. I like the thought since creativity is mothers milk of trial practice. Sometimes it curdles though.
CroMag:
Your comment is just about right for my closing argument, which I always write before I file the case subject to modification of course. I wish I was under the ancient law of the guest instead of this damn negligence with its emphasis on foreseeablility. See Palsgraf case discussion on this board supra.
Former Federal LEO
1, October 1, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The parents were simply saying, “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.” They had no obligation to do otherwise, except phone the
I disagree. This would be true had these been sober adults perhaps, but not where children are concerned. These were minors invited to the parents home, thus giving the parents a reasonable level of responsiblity to ensure their safety not only in their home, but to ensure they are not intentionally placed in harms way. When they knowingly banished young, unarmed children into the street with violent teens who had already demonstrated violence they were putting these kids in a position to be harmed, and knowingly so. Their answer to a violent attack was to send the attacker, and all the children, into the street to settle it among themselves.
This was irresponsible and resulted in the death of someones kid. I think they were negligent, by purposely placing those kids in an obviously and demonstrably dangerous situation.
Mespo,
Was this party one where the kids all pay a flat rate to the host for all the drinks and snacks that they want? I am stretching once again to see if there is maybe a contract claim that is possible. If they paid their money, does that paid host owe any additional duty to the paid guests? You can tell that the bulk of my experience is in the transactional areas of the law!
rafflaw:
Well the shooting was on the street. The law seems pretty clear that absent a “special relationship” like landlord-tenant or restaurant-patron there is no duty to protect guests from a foreseeable battery by a third party. I am the one grasping at straws by trying to suggest that a duty relationship arises from the fact that the guests were minors and the hosts were adults. Sort of a defacto in loco parentis relationship. It has good gut feel from a torts perspective, but the law just isn’t there except for that Michigan case that does cite an ALI (20 ALR3rd 1127)article.I am trying to get a hold of that now. The Michigan case is Klimek v. Drzewiecki, 352 N.W.2d 361 (1984) but other than that the pickings are pretty slim.
Mespo,
Did the shooting occur on the parent’s property? Do they have a duty to keep their property safe from people they know from first hand experience, are dangerous? Is it any different than removing dangerous obstructions so noone is injured? I am grasping at straws here, but it sounds feasible.
Former Federal LEO:
I do appreciate your insight and, as one who has tried juries for 24 years, I agree that rigid adherence to the instructions by the panel is not always the norm. I also agree that different perspectives make for better lawyering since everybody’s opinion counts on a jury of 7 as we have here in Virginia. I try to look for the natural justice of the case, and your comment that the host parents were simply “not thinking of any consequences,” seems a theme for the brand of legal negligence that may have been demonstrated. Akin to a driver hurrying home from work and, while traveling above the legal speed limit, runs a yield sign and then causes a tragic accident. Again, thank you for a perspective outside of my own “thought box.” BTW I do use mock juries all the time to evaluate case values, but I like this forum to evaluate whether a case exists at all for such a novel theory or an expansion of the law.
BTW the cops were on the scene within minutes which is testament to how they viewed the matter. I will try and get their logs to see just what priority they put on the call and who and when it was phoned in to the dispatch. That call-in might have interesting comments about the scene as well. Just more good ideas triggered by your experienced based comments. Thanks.
The parents were simply saying, “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.” They had no obligation to do otherwise, except phone the police, which they unfortunately did not do. However, they might have thought doing so would escalate the problem and then result in later retaliatory actions against them by the thugs. Most likely, they simply were not thinking of any consequences.
I think that you asked question, especially on a forum of this caliber and legal leanings, is important. Some .Esqs might consider this ‘lawyering by committee’; however, I see your request as a laudable attempt to understand all the aspects of what a hypothetical jury pool might consider reasonable and prudent, in addition to your legal expertise. Having experience as a member of a jury and as an LEO, you (especially), others, and I know that strict legal principles are *not* what juries often rely on with their verdicts.
As I have mentioned, I accessed this site for insight and knowledge regarding our failing legal system and I have already learned some important aspects.
Reiteratively, I do not fault the parents in the tragedy. They used bad judgment by not calling the police, although we know LE response is often slow and the event might have occurred anyway.
You’re welcome. And if as you said these scumbags started a physical fight in the house first, and THEN the parents sent the kids into the street AFTER seeing this confrontation, then it seems to me it effectively constitutes the ole “take it outside” routine.
Whether or not the danger of these thugs was made apparent to the parents by the other kids or not really doesn’t seem to matter here, if the parents already saw them fighting already. If they were firsthand witnesses to violence from these kids, and then chose to tell them and all the other kids there to effectively “take it outside”, which it sounds more and more like was the case, then they were effectively facilitating the events that followed.
“Take it outside” says you don’t care what happens as long as it doesn’t happen in your house.
If you do that with adults thats one thing. But with kids? Seems pretty negligent to me.
Cro:
Your opinion counts too since you sit on juries–for that matter yours may count even more since you have no predisposition to placate me. The kids were not an organized gang nor regarded as such by the cops. The other guests were in fear of the guys though and they were well known by the kids to be violent and abusers of drugs. Don’t know if that info was conveyed to the hosts but the birthday girl did try to get her parents to eject only the gang members and she was aware of their propensities. The parents did witness at least some of the violence in the house.
The best we can determine somebody at the party text messaged one of the gang and they all showed up. That’s about all we really know.
The altercation in the house did get physical and there were verbal threats of more violence being bantered about. The parents appeared to at least one kid to be more concerned about property than the kids’ safety but that is obviously a matter of opinion.
My clients are very concerned about the same issue you raised which is why weren’t the police called initially,and why were two volatile groups thrown together literally at the curb.
Good thoughts and comments. Thanks.
Well, you asked for your friends opinions but I’ll offer mine anyway.
Several questions would need to be answered in my estimation. Such as were these known gang members. Who did they know at the party? How did they know there was a party and did someone invite them? Were the other kids at the party afraid of them? Did they ask just them to leave?
Depending on the answers there I’d say IF these were known gang members or criminal types, and if people were afraid of them, particularly the other kids at the party, which it sounds like maybe they were, and the parents ordered “everyone” into the “street”, then it seems to me to be a negligent decision on the part of the parents.
Forcing the other children “into the street” with people considered to be dangerous or criminals was irresponsible and dangerous, and could only lead to one result. There seems to be more concern on the parents with protecting their home and property than the safety of the children they invited to their home for this party.
Depending on the level of threat these kids presented when they arrived, it would seem that calling the police here should have been the first option, not the last, if the thug kids refused to leave when asked.
But sending all the kids “into the street” was effectively setting up a cage match so to speak, with the cage being the lack of a secure retreat for the other kids once they were dumped into the street with a group of dangerous gang type kids. The parents effectively washed their hands of the safety of the other kids and just pushed it all into the street, forcing the other kids not armed with handguns into a volatile situation with no place for retreat.
To All of My Friends Here:
Speaking of terrorizing kids, I have a horrible death case involving a 16 year old that I could use some input on from the lawyers and lay persons alike around here. Not to make this the “Help mespo727272 blog” but the facts are compelling IMO and I guess those who know me around here know I would like to help these clients.
Facts: My clients’ child attended a sweet sixteen party as an invited guest of the parents of a friend. The party went late and the parents were present. A gang of young thugs (really no other way to describe them) showed up and crashed the party. When an altercation broke out among the crashers (also minors) and some OTHER party goers, the host parents ordered all persons in the house, guests and thugs alike, into the street. In my admittedly liberal view, placing the lambs with the unrestrained wolves. As you might expect, things immediately got out of hand, and my client’s child was shot several times and expired. I am thinking of a claim against the hosts for negligent failure to protect, the perpetrator already having been sentenced to prison.
I have diligently searched for some authority establishing that an adult has a higher duty to a guest on his property when the guest is a child since we all know that in most states, a host owes no duty to a guest to safeguard against third party assault or battery unless a “special relationship” exists. I have found a Michigan Supreme Court case which does hold this way, but it was severely criticized in a subsequent opinion and its value is suspect.
If anyone has any experience with this situation, I am all ears. The parents are “salt of the earth” types and their son was an honor student. They are devastated as everyone knows. I am reluctant to take the case because of the dearth of authority in Virginia and elsewhere, but I might give it a shot if you, my dear readers, think a jury might be sympathetic to the heightened duty to a minor guest argument. In my straw poll around the building, everyone already thought the adult host had the higher duty to the child guest but that is not the position of most courts since I doubt we have an in loco parentis relationship . You should also know that the host parents did not call the police until after shots were fired.
Please opine.
Has anyone tested her for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy? (mad cow disease)
This is “udderly” ridiculous!
No, no it was the Chick-fil-A cow trying to give away nuggets. Dumb kids! Oh, and about that urinating on the porch part–just part of the show. Haven’t those people ever been to a dairy farm?