I had always thought that if someone was hurt on your property, then you are responsible. The Pier 34 case as written by my colleague Julie Shaw is proving that it may not be that simple.
Eli Karetny and Michael Asbell are on trial in connection with the collapse of the pier and the Heat nightclub into the Delaware River, in which the three women drowned in May 2000.
Shaw's story reads, "In the last week, when family members of Karetny and Asbell have also been in court, the atmosphere has been more tense and emotional. The victims' and defendants' family members sit on opposite sides and have expressed disbelief or impatience with testimony from various witnesses and comments from the lawyers."
Basically, Karetny and Asbell are contending that they are not responsible for the deaths. The victims' families, of course, say they are. Continue to read Shaw's stories in the Inquirer to keep up with the latest on this very interesting trial. Feel free to share your thoughts.
Comments (1)
There are two types of responsiblity (or liability) at issue here. Civil liability, which was never in question, has already been addressed with a monetary settlement made to each of the families of the deceased girls and the injured victims of the pier collapse. This trial represents a long-standing effort on the part of the DA to convict Karetny and Asbell on criminal liability charges which is a very different matter, requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendants knew that the pier condition could lead to grave injuries and willfully and criminally ignored that information,resulting in 3 deaths and numerous injuries. That has been a more difficult type of 'responsibility' to prove.
Posted by wilma![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/inquirer/rapsheet/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 3, 2006 7:40 AM
Posted on November 3, 2006 07:40