http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/city-camden-settles-lawsuit-missing-boys-found-dead/story?id=10490774
Three families whose children suffocated to death after they accidently locked themselves in the trunk of an old car have received a settlement of $2.25 million from the city of Camden, N.J. after they sued the city claiming the police failed to find the children in time.

The families are also receiving a barrage of online criticism allegedly from people who believe the lawsuit is the latest outrage in a lawsuit-happy society. Typical of the comments was one from the Philadelphia Enquirer's online site that railed, "How pathetic. Blaming the police for your own lack of parenting skills. Why didn't they watch their own kids? and why didn't they search the car themselves?"

Many of the messages are far harsher.

But lawyers for the families argue that the case is the result of improperly trained police, and experts say the settlement may have serious implications for other municipalities, especially with Amber Alerts and reports of missing children almost a daily occurrence.

"They see it as profoundly bittersweet," Paul Brandes, attorney for the family of Anibal Cruz told ABC News. "The only solace they have is the fact that they got justice for their son, and just as importantly they made the community better because the police force has been made to address deficient policies."

Brandes argued the Camden police failed to follow protocols and procedures for searching for missing children as they tried to locate Daniel Agosto, 6, Anibal Cruz, 11, and Jesstin Pagan, 5.

The children were reported missing after playing in Cruz's front yard in 2005, and parents who were watching the boys lost track of them. It was later determined that they climbed into the trunk of a Toyota Camry parked in the Cruz's yard

Despite an extensive search by police that included helicopters and bloodhounds, Brandes said the police were disorganized and improperly trained.

"We were suing them for performing an improper search, and for failure to properly train police officers to conduct a search," Brandes said. "There are national protocols in place for years, and this department made no effort to learn about them."

Officer Checked the Car, But Didn't Check the Car's Trunk

Those protocols, put out by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, include detailed search checklists, the lawyer said.

One female officer is cited in court documents and police reports for beginning to search the Camry parked in the Cruz's yard. According to Brandes the officer was pulled away from the car before the search was complete and never went back to search. The children were found in the trunk of the car three days later by a relative looking for jumper cables. Also found in the car's back seat were their shoes, missed by the police during their search. According to the coroner's report, the boys were most likely alive for 13-hours inside the trunk.

The officer "had the greatest opportunity to find these kids. She went to the car, she claims she got distracted and pulled away when someone said the boys were found at a pizza parlor. She said her intent all along was to finish searching the car, but she never did it. It's emblematic of what happens when you don't have ingrained policies in the minds of the officers," Brandes said.

"If that one officer had done what she's supposed to do, none of this would have ever happened," Andrew Rossetti, attorney for the family of Daniel Agosto told ABC News.

Rossetti said the cop who started to search the Camry had actually told her supervisors that the car had been searched even though she never finished searching the car, and that two command centers set up by police during the search gave conflicting orders over whether or not to even search the car in the first place.

"This has to do with training and a lack of diligence, you're a professional and have to take the job seriously," Rossetti said.

Camden City Attorney Howard McCoach told ABC News the settlement was not at all indicative that the city or police force took any blame for the tragic outcome.

"You can't troll anything from the settlement. The decision to settle was with the city's insurance company, Meadowbrook Insurance," McCoach said.

Camden Police Admit No Wrongdoing in Failing to Find Missing Children

The city is liable for the first $300,000 of any litigation, McCoach said, and once that amount is exceeded Meadowbrook takes over and in this instance McCoach said he assumes the insurance company decided it was better to settle while giving no admissions of liability or guilt.

"There are no admissions in this case that we did anything wrong," McCoach said.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has trained over 260,000 police officers and officials over the last 25 years in how to properly search for missing children and the Camden Police Department has not participated, center spokesman Ernie Allen said.

According to Allen training in how to extensively and systematically break down a search for missing children is the most important factor when time is essential. He said the Camden police acted aggressively in their search.

"I remember this case very well, and how horrible it was. And the other thing I remember was the Camden police took this case really seriously," Allen said. "They devoted an extraordinary amount of effort to find these children."

"I hear from police all over America all of the time, it doesn't matter how aggressive you are, how hard you try, if you don't find the children, you fail," Allen added.

"Clearly, somebody should have looked in the trunk. That goes without saying," he said.

Allen worries that the settlement could make police departments leery of searching for children. If they search and fail, they could be sued, but if they argue that searching for children isn't their job, there is no liability.

"Anytime there are these kinds of settlements in these cases, one of the things you worry about is that it makes police departments less willing to be aggressive because of fear of civil liability if it doesn't turn out well," he said.

Rather than impact the effort put forth by police in these cases, Allen hopes that police use this case as an example of the importance of proper training.

"Our hope is not just Camden, but police departments across the U.S. will learn from it," Allen said.

Both attorney's say the families do take some responsibility for what happened. They knew the boys had played in the car on prior occasions, but were so panicked and distraught they never thought of it, which according to the lawyers is exactly why police should be extensively trained in how to handle the search and the families involved are needed.

"The parents panicked, they were completely out of it. They called the police because they are the professionals," Rossetti said.

According to Rossetti, the police department admitted they did not follow guidelines put forth by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but instead had their own policy in place.

"The Camden Police choose to keep a policy on searches that's one and a have pages, and it's woefully deficient. Even the state police here in New Jersey have adopted much more extensive guidelines than the Camden Police," Rossetti said.

The harsh online criticism leveled at the families has been especially hard to take, both attorney's said.

"The parents, all of them were very harshly criticized in the local media and still are in comments on articles. People say we're scum ...lawyers, these parents weren't watching their kids and they were responsible. My clients took that personally and are very distraught," Rossetti said.

Families Criticized for Suing Police Who Failed to Find Their Children

"People say they should have been responsible, that it's not the police's responsibility and these are money grubbing parents only interested in money. Some very hateful and disgusting things people are writing," Brandes said.

"It was a mistake of the parents to not remember the kids might be in the car, but that's what the professionals are there for, to save you from those basic everyday mistakes," Brandes said.

According to Brandes the police conducted a panel review after the boys were found and concluded the department should have located the boys.

"The panel report said you cannot rely on the parents when they are panicked, you can try to get information from them but don't rely on that, that's why you have trained professionals. The panel found the boys should have been found by the police right then and there," Brandes said.

"Hopefully lawsuits like this make the Camden police get their acts together," Rosetti said.
:facepalm2:

Allen worries that the settlement could make police departments leery of searching for children. If they search and fail, they could be sued, but if they argue that searching for children isn't their job, there is no liability.

Both an interesting and frightening thought.

Can society sue the parents over whatever they recovered in damages?

Camden settled it. It seems rather likely they will do the right thing next time.

It is sad that $2 million + won't return these people children. It is sad that people begrudge them this minor compensation.

What a damn joke. That's $2.25 million that the city of camden can't really afford.

What a damn joke. That's $2.25 million that the city of camden can't really afford.

Yep. This money doesn't just get conjured from air.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100414/NEWS01/4140339/Residents-vent-anger-over-budget-cuts-in-Camden

Residents vent anger over budget cuts in Camden

By JOSEPH GIDJUNIS • Courier-Post Staff • April 14, 2010

CAMDEN — A public meeting Tuesday over $23 million in planned budget cuts produced as much anger over the district's poor communications as it did despair over the looming losses of jobs and programs.

etc.

What a damn joke. That's $2.25 million that the city of camden can't really afford.

:secret: It's $300,000.

:secret: It's $300,000.

:secret: It's bad parenting

:secret: It's bad parenting

What is?

:secret: It's $300,000.

What do you think Meadowbrook is going to do to their insurance premium?

Both an interesting and frightening thought.

I'm not sure what frightens me more: that the police wouldn't search for missing children, or that they're so inept as to what the requirements of their job entails that they'd rather not do it than learn how to do it properly. Is it really that hard to remember that searching a car means you search the trunk too?

Sometimes the blame doesn't lie with one side or the other, but sometimes with neither or BOTH. The parents are at fault for inadequate supervision, but that doesn't mean that police gets a pass for not doing their jobs adequately.

What do you think Meadowbrook is going to do to their insurance premium?

Reward them for their good police work by lowering it? :dontknow:

Reward them for their good police work by lowering it? :dontknow:

Probably not.

I'm not sure what frightens me more: that the police wouldn't search for missing children, or that they're so inept as to what the requirements of their job entails that they'd rather not do it than learn how to do it properly. Is it really that hard to remember that searching a car means you search the trunk too?

Sometimes the blame doesn't lie with one side or the other, but sometimes with neither or BOTH. The parents are at fault for inadequate supervision, but that doesn't mean that police gets a pass for not doing their jobs adequately.

Why would you search for a missing kid if, when you make a mistake, you can get sued for millions of dollars should you not find them?

I don't know the SOP for finding missing kids, but if a parent calls and says, "Hey, my kids are missing." I tend to think that the parents probably searched their own property prior to calling the cops. Checking the trunk of a car owned by the parents strikes me as something that falls under the parent's responsibility. Making sure your kids are smart enough not to lock themselves in air tight car trunks, dito.

What do you think Meadowbrook is going to do to their insurance premium?

They were probably in favor of the settlement.

Considering the supreme court has ruled that there is no guarantee of individual protection by the police, I wouldn't think this case would have withstood higher court challenges, even if the plaintiffs had won the lawsuit.

Likely just the insurance company cutting their losses on legal bills.

What is?

Thinking the police somehow have magic powers and are not human.

I don't care how much you revise a process, human process = prone to error.

These parents failed their kids by not looking for the kids themselves.


Sometimes the blame doesn't lie with one side or the other, but sometimes with neither or BOTH. The parents are at fault for inadequate supervision, but that doesn't mean that police gets a pass for not doing their jobs adequately.

Would you like to inform us what is "adequate" for police work?

100% of crimes solved?

100% of missing children found?

These parents are pretty inept if they didn't scour their own property.

They were probably in favor of the settlement.

Considering the supreme court has ruled that there is no guarantee of individual protection by the police, I wouldn't think this case would have withstood higher court challenges, even if the plaintiffs had won the lawsuit.

Likely just the insurance company cutting their losses on legal bills.

Sure. But they can justifiably jack up Camden's premiums as a result of this event.

Sure. But they can justifiably jack up Camden's premiums as a result of this event.

Probably. But not as much as they would if they'd had to pay a million or two in attorney's fees. It's dollars and cents. The 300K is less than a trial would have cost, even if they prevailed.

Attorneys know this. They file cases all the time with no intent of pursuing them.

Cities that self insure are probably less likely to settle bs cases.

Probably. But not as much as they would if they'd had to pay a million or two in attorney's fees. It's dollars and cents. The 300K is less than a trial would have cost, even if they prevailed.

Attorneys know this. They file cases all the time with no intent of pursuing them.

Cities that self insure are probably less likely to settle bs cases.
I'd be surprised if that's the case if precedent is already set that cops don't have to protect the citizens, but it is entirely possible.

As much as I think, this is a crappy lawsuit that should have been laughed and thrown out of court... I kinda don't care since it was the police being sued...

Does it really matter if the police gets sued, the city will just give the police new powers to ticket innocent and random people for whatever nonsense and make their money back... Works wonder in NYC ...

So the next time you get pulled over and given a BS reason why you got a ticket, well this is where its going toward....:mad:

I'd be surprised if that's the case if precedent is already set that cops don't have to protect the citizens, but it is entirely possible.

You mean it haven't.... ? Cops are already legally able to get away shooting innocent people, sometimes even killing them.. They only have to "percieve" or "think up" a threat to fire indiscrimiately

So no cops have no duty to protect citizens, cops duty is to protect the gov't and the municipality in which PAYS their checks...

I'd be surprised if that's the case if precedent is already set that cops don't have to protect the citizens, but it is entirely possible.
They are responsible for following protocol (hence the "we won't starting looking into missing kids" being BS). Not following protocol, whether it be not taking the case or not checking the trunk is negligence.

So ok so the parents claim the police are at fault for failure to search properly.

Why weren't the parents charged with child negligence/endangerment?

If there is fault on both sides, only punishing one side is unfair (the parents loss is not the punishment imposed by the same society bearing the cost of the city/insurance company).

So ok so the parents claim the police are at fault for failure to search properly.

Why weren't the parents charged with child negligence/endangerment?

If there is fault on both sides, only punishing one side is unfair (the parents loss is not the punishment imposed by the same society bearing the cost of the city/insurance company).Child endangerment? For what? Not watching their kids in their own front yard? Good luck with that one.

Besides, there was no guilt in this case - it was settled.

So ok so the parents claim the police are at fault for failure to search properly.

Why weren't the parents charged with child negligence/endangerment?

If there is fault on both sides, only punishing one side is unfair (the parents loss is not the punishment imposed by the same society bearing the cost of the city/insurance company).
Its a civil case, would you have liked the parents to sue themselves as well for both sides to be found at fault?

Should this be the parents partly at fault? The boys were in the front yard playing and the boys' shoes were found in the backseat. If I had boys, I (as the parent) probably would have searched the car on that basis alone. This can be considered a case of parental neglect can't it?
And the settlement would be taking away from the funds that the city has for training police officers, which is very ironic!

Why would you search for a missing kid if, when you make a mistake, you can get sued for millions of dollars should you not find them?

I don't know the SOP for finding missing kids, but if a parent calls and says, "Hey, my kids are missing." I tend to think that the parents probably searched their own property prior to calling the cops. Checking the trunk of a car owned by the parents strikes me as something that falls under the parent's responsibility. Making sure your kids are smart enough not to lock themselves in air tight car trunks, dito.

They weren't sued because they didn't find them. They were sued because they didn't follow standard procedure that they were trained to do.

Thinking the police somehow have magic powers and are not human.

I don't care how much you revise a process, human process = prone to error.

These parents failed their kids by not looking for the kids themselves.



Would you like to inform us what is "adequate" for police work?

100% of crimes solved?

100% of missing children found?

These parents are pretty inept if they didn't scour their own property.

Adequate would be following their standard procedure and not clearing a car as searched when you did NOT search it. When you clear a room or a car as having been searched, and it turns out you missed A PERSON in that area, you didn't perform adequately. I never said the parents weren't inept, or that everything they did was ok. But this isn't a zero sum game. It's not one person's fault OR the other. One group screwed up, but that's not a free pass for the second group to screw up as well.

Child endangerment? For what? Not watching their kids in their own front yard? Good luck with that one.

Besides, there was no guilt in this case - it was settled.

Probably more along the lines to not locking the car or car trunk and leaving it accessible to them. If your kid find a gun or a knife and severely injures himself with it, nobody is going crazy because you weren't watching him in your own house, they'd go crazy that you didn't protect him from potentially dangerous items and/or situations.

Both an interesting and frightening thought.

New Jersey law must be very generous in terms of proving police negligence.

Federally, the courts have held time and time again that the police have no affirmative duty to do anything for you.

Camden settled it. It seems rather likely they will do the right thing next time.

It is sad that $2 million + won't return these people children. It is sad that people begrudge them this minor compensation.

BECAUSE THEY DONT' DESERVE IT.

It's not the amount, it's the fact that they were paid at all. If they were paid $50 I would still protest it.

Why would you search for a missing kid if, when you make a mistake, you can get sued for millions of dollars should you not find them?

I don't know the SOP for finding missing kids, but if a parent calls and says, "Hey, my kids are missing." I tend to think that the parents probably searched their own property prior to calling the cops. Checking the trunk of a car owned by the parents strikes me as something that falls under the parent's responsibility. Making sure your kids are smart enough not to lock themselves in air tight car trunks, dito.

It's just like when illegal mestizos show up at the ER with their anchor brats and get treated for free, of course, and they sue if something goes wrong.

I'd be surprised if that's the case if precedent is already set that cops don't have to protect the citizens, but it is entirely possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

I don't know the names of the cases off hand, but the same principle has been extended to the police.

They are responsible for following protocol (hence the "we won't starting looking into missing kids" being BS). Not following protocol, whether it be not taking the case or not checking the trunk is negligence.

Negligence assumes that you have a duty of care to the person injured. I don't think the police owe any affirmative duty to the citizens.

The methodology has long been established in a general sense for not providing a service in lieu of risking a lawsuit. Local municipal golf course was sued, and lost for not following their own established SOP for dealing with storms where lightning was present. Golfer was struck by lightning and killed. The course's SOP said all golfers would be warned of any lightning strikes within 5 miles of the course by a loudspeaker system. The system was inoperable at the time and had been for several months. Instead, the course sent someone out in a golf cart to warn people but the accident happened before they were warned.

Same course 2 years later was sued again for the exact same thing (lightning can strike twice..!!!)... and won because immediately following the previous lawsuit, they removed all SOPs related to warning golfers/handling of inclement weather and printed on the back of all their receipts, membership contracts etc was language that basically said... we provide a golf course, and nothing else, golf at your own risk.

Court said, if they had a policy, they must follow it, and failure to do so is negligent. Since they had no policy, customers had no reasonable expectation of additional protection beyond their own judgment.

Negligence assumes that you have a duty of care to the person injured. I don't think the police owe any affirmative duty to the citizens.

Whether or not you have a duty to take care of the person injured, you must follow SOP or you are negligent.

They weren't sued because they didn't find them. They were sued because they didn't follow standard procedure that they were trained to do.

They were sued because they made a mistake in not following a procedure.

According to the article, the search of the car was interupted when the kids were mistakenly said to be found. I see it as a mistake to not go back and finish the search. (I also wonder why the officer didn't hear 3 kids in the trunk if they were looking through the car)

Whether or not you have a duty to take care of the person injured, you must follow SOP or you are negligent.

Please leave the lawyering to people who know what they're talking about.

Negligence is a tort that requires four elements:

1) A duty of care
2) A breach of that duty of care
3) Injury to the plaintiff
4) Causation, meaning the breach of the duty caused the injury.

If the police don't owe a duty of care, which I do not think they do, by definition, they cannot be negligent.

They were sued because they made a mistake in not following a procedure.

According to the article, the search of the car was interupted when the kids were mistakenly said to be found. I see it as a mistake to not go back and finish the search. (I also wonder why the officer didn't hear 3 kids in the trunk if they were looking through the car)

Again, even if a mistake is made, it's only legal negligence if the person who made the mistake owes a legal duty of care to the plaintiff.

Please leave the lawyering to people who know what they're talking about.

Negligence is a tort that requires four elements:

1) A duty of care
2) A breach of that duty of care
3) Injury to the plaintiff
4) Causation, meaning the breach of the duty caused the injury.

If the police don't owe a duty of care, which I do not think they do, by definition, they cannot be negligent.
Their SOP requires them to provide the duty of care.

Their SOP requires them to provide the duty of care.

Says who?

Here's an example.

Agreeing to do something voluntarily doesn't establish a legal duty of care. If it did, everyone who assisted a neighbor in clearing the yard would be responsible to do that forever.

Says who?

Here's an example.

Agreeing to do something voluntarily doesn't establish a legal duty of care. If it did, everyone who assisted a neighbor in clearing the yard would be responsible to do that forever.
That makes zero sense at all.

If I voluntarily told somebody I would shovel their sidewalk and I didn't and somebody slipped and injured themselves, I would be sued.

That makes zero sense at all.

If I voluntarily told somebody I would shovel their sidewalk and I didn't and somebody slipped and injured themselves, I would be sued.

Perhaps.

But if you shoveled someone's sidewalk one day, and then two years later, did not, you would not be liable.

Perhaps.

But if you shoveled someone's sidewalk one day, and then two years later, did not, you would not be liable.
Right because I don't have a written SOP saying I would shovel anytime it snowed.

Right because I don't have a written SOP saying I would shovel anytime it snowed.

Their procedures are internal.

If you wrote in your diary at home that you wanted to be a good samaritan and would shovel the old lady down the street's driveway whenever it snowed, you would not be liable.

You're taking the absurd position that once someone writes something down about how they want to do things themselves, then the entire world is now owed a duty of care.

As much as I think, this is a crappy lawsuit that should have been laughed and thrown out of court... I kinda don't care since it was the police being sued...

Does it really matter if the police gets sued, the city will just give the police new powers to ticket innocent and random people for whatever nonsense and make their money back... Works wonder in NYC ...

So the next time you get pulled over and given a BS reason why you got a ticket, well this is where its going toward....:mad:

Maybe the most succinct post you've ever made, summing up just how your thought processes work.....

They are responsible for following protocol (hence the "we won't starting looking into missing kids" being BS). Not following protocol, whether it be not taking the case or not checking the trunk is negligence.

:shake:

Anyone else wondering how many cars may have been strewed about the yard for the parents not to check that one out, notice the shoes, and hear the kids freaking out inside?

This wasn't the only cashing in they did, check this out:

Families settle with NJ city over car-trunk deaths (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iX7V15sXPD99jH_Oz1wrippw3OLAD9FAP3H01)

CAMDEN, N.J. — The families of three New Jersey boys who died in the trunk of a parked car as police searched for them have settled lawsuits against the city of Camden.

The families of 11-year-old Anibal Cruz, 6-year-old Daniel Agosto and 5-year-old Jesstin Pagan agreed to accept a total of $2.25 million.

Police scoured Camden after the boys vanished on June 22, 2005, but no one checked the trunk of the Toyota Camry parked in the Cruz family's yard. One officer looked quickly in the main part of the car, then moved on. Officials believe it's likely the boys were still alive at the time.

Toyota agreed last year to pay the family of each boy $100,000.

The city settlements were made last month. They were first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Their procedures are internal.

If you wrote in your diary at home that you wanted to be a good samaritan and would shovel the old lady down the street's driveway whenever it snowed, you would not be liable.

There are 2 separate issues, one for this case and one for future.

Now: They took the case (offered to shovel the snow) and didn't do it properly

Future: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children no matter what has a protocol of what the police are supposed to do if a child is reported missing.

Perhaps.

But if you shoveled someone's sidewalk one day, and then two years later, did not, you would not be liable.

Didn't the cops agree to search for the children? I don't understand your argument. They didn't turn around and leave, they searched and farked it up.

Or was your argument that not taking the case would not have been negligence? At that point, while it may not be negligence specifically for this case, it would be negligence because it would mean they ignored their duty as a police officer to respond to and take the case of a missing kid. I doubt police department standard procedure allows them to ignore missing children.

There are 2 separate issues, one for this case and one for future.

Now: They took the case (offered to shovel the snow) and didn't do it properly

Future: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children no matter what has a protocol of what the police are supposed to do if a child is reported missing.

Again, they're not under any legal obligation to "do it properly."

You fundamentally misunderstand principles of Constitutional and tort law.

Again, they're not under any legal obligation to "do it properly."

You fundamentally misunderstand principles of Constitutional and tort law.
They are under legal obligation to follow protocol.

They are under legal obligation to follow protocol.

You can't keep spewing the same falsehood over and over again without providing legal evidence of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

If you want the whole decision, click the 2nd link.

I've provided proof. Now refute it.

Child endangerment? For what? Not watching their kids in their own front yard? Good luck with that one.

Besides, there was no guilt in this case - it was settled.

3 kids were killed in part due to parental stupidity. They are partially responsible for the deaths.

3 kids were killed in part due to parental stupidity. They are partially responsible for the deaths.

A parent cannot be around 24/7 eyeing their kids... and bad things may happen that just life..

You can't keep spewing the same falsehood over and over again without providing legal evidence of this.
The evidence is quite obvious. Police are sued for negligence quite frequently.

The evidence is quite obvious. Police are sued for negligence quite frequently.

People are sued all the time for all kinds of things. That doesn't mean there is legal merit to any of the claims.

People are sued all the time for all kinds of things. That doesn't mean there is legal merit to any of the claims.
There is if the plaintiff wins. Do you really want me to find and link a whole bunch of times somebody sued and won? Even the fact that this suit wasn't immediately thrown out of court tells you something.

3 kids were killed in part due to parental stupidity. They are partially responsible for the deaths.I think there's enough responsibility here to be placed all over the place - the kids, the parents, and the police. However, in order to sustain a criminal charge of child endangerment you're going to need to convince 12 people that the parents were acting criminally negligent by leaving their kids to play in their front yard without supervision. All it takes is one of those 12 people to think that leaving your kids in your own front yard unsupervised is not really that unreasonable and you won't get such a charge to stick.

People make mistakes - to err is human. In this case the kids made the mistake of playing in the trunk to begin with, the parents made the mistake of not checking the cars when their kids were missing, and the police made the mistake of not searching the car as well. I don't think the police should be held ultimately accountable except that I'd like it if they'd strengthen their policies and training for this sort of thing, but by the same token I don't think the parents should be held ultimately accountable either.

It's a case where no one should have been at fault (legally), but the ones that are now perceived to be at fault are the ones whose insurance company settled the case. But as my bolding of the word perception implies, the non-determination of guilt isn't really the same thing in the public's mind, especially when you're going for a sensational-type headline that's going to get people screaming "this is unfair!!!" And mission accomplished in that respect.

Again, they're not under any legal obligation to "do it properly."

You fundamentally misunderstand principles of Constitutional and tort law.

Poor analogy. When it comes to clearing an area as having been searched, there is no properly or not properly. It's a binary result. You either did it or you didn't. The police did NOT search the car.

This is a perfect setup for a windfall profits tax on unjustified settlements and lawsuits. We need it to replenish state money.

http://www.nj.com/gloucester/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1270619720288050.xml&coll=8

Gov. Chris Christie's grim budget forecast last month may not have been dark enough, with New Jersey revenue collections likely to come up $250 million short through June 2011, according to a nonpartisan report to be released today.

"Years of revenue growth have evaporated," according to the report, prepared by the Office of Legislative Services and obtained by The Star-Ledger of Newark, sister paper of the Times. "The period of economic recovery required to produce earlier collection levels is uncertain."

In the fiscal year starting July 1, OLS estimates revenue will be $167.7 million lower than the $28.3 billion Christie projected when he outlined his proposed $29.3 billion budget last month. Revenue for the fiscal year ending this June is projected at $27.6 billion, $81.7 million less than projected.

Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature said the new forecast could make Christie's proposed budget Ð which slashes aid to schools, towns, and colleges while rejecting broad-based tax increases Ð more painful.

"I know that the governor's dealing with a very difficult budget, but accurate information is very important," Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-3, of West Deptford said Tuesday. "We don't want to live in wonderland."

There is if the plaintiff wins. Do you really want me to find and link a whole bunch of times somebody sued and won? Even the fact that this suit wasn't immediately thrown out of court tells you something.

Yes, I want you to find me cases where the police were sued for negligence for NOT doing something (not a negligence case was an officer caused an accident for example) and won. Any case where the plaintiff won but was reversed on appeal doesn't count.

Poor analogy. When it comes to clearing an area as having been searched, there is no properly or not properly. It's a binary result. You either did it or you didn't. The police did NOT search the car.

And they had no legal duty to search the car.

Yes, I want you to find me cases where the police were sued for negligence for NOT doing something (not a negligence case was an officer caused an accident for example) and won. Any case where the plaintiff won but was reversed on appeal doesn't count.



And they had no legal duty to search the car.
Cantwell v. Allegheny County
Fischer v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Dale Athmann, the City of New Orleans, and Jane Done
Clemente v. State of California

Cantwell v. Allegheny County
Fischer v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Dale Athmann, the City of New Orleans, and Jane Done
Clemente v. State of California

Do you read the cases you post? The first two have NOTHING AT ALL to do with the issue we're discussing. The third I can't find with a web search. You're going to have to do better than that.

Do you read the cases you post? The first two have NOTHING AT ALL to do with the issue we're discussing. The third I can't find with a web search. You're going to have to do better than that.
Actually, they do. They are all involving cases where the negligence of the police lead to lawsuits.

Cantwell v. Allegheny County: Lab was negligent in handling evidence, lawsuit upheld

Fischer v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Dale Athmann, the City of New Orleans, and Jane Done and Clemente v. State: Cops didn't do their job of getting names at an accident. Negligence case upheld.

Clark v. Clabaugh: ederal appeals court rules that a showing of negligence would be a sufficient legal basis for imposing civil liability on city and police officials for failure to attempt to prevent racial assaults by white bikers on interracial group based on allegation that defendants had "actual knowledge" of conspiracy to cause impending racial disturbance

Both an interesting and frightening thought.

Not that far fetched, either, seeing as how police have no legal obligation to protect us already.

This wasn't the only cashing in they did, check this out:

Families settle with NJ city over car-trunk deaths (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iX7V15sXPD99jH_Oz1wrippw3OLAD9FAP3H01)

CAMDEN, N.J. — The families of three New Jersey boys who died in the trunk of a parked car as police searched for them have settled lawsuits against the city of Camden.

The families of 11-year-old Anibal Cruz, 6-year-old Daniel Agosto and 5-year-old Jesstin Pagan agreed to accept a total of $2.25 million.

Police scoured Camden after the boys vanished on June 22, 2005, but no one checked the trunk of the Toyota Camry parked in the Cruz family's yard. One officer looked quickly in the main part of the car, then moved on. Officials believe it's likely the boys were still alive at the time.

Toyota agreed last year to pay the family of each boy $100,000.

The city settlements were made last month. They were first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
What? Why?

Sometimes I wish the court take out the ability of cash settlement without admit wrong doing.

anyone even wonderr if they were PUT in the trunk?! If the kids were trapped woudn't they have made plenty of noise at some point ?! Forget the lawsuits.... this makes no sense..... I remember doing similar things as a kid and after 5min we coudnt stand being in there...

anyone even wonderr if they were PUT in the trunk?! If the kids were trapped woudn't they have made plenty of noise at some point ?! Forget the lawsuits.... this makes no sense..... I remember doing similar things as a kid and after 5min we coudnt stand being in there...

If nobody was nearby when it happened, it's plausible that people wouldn't have heard the muffled cries. And being that there were 3 of them and probably pretty panicked, they likely ran out of air pretty quickly and passed out.

If nobody was nearby when it happened, it's plausible that people wouldn't have heard the muffled cries. And being that there were 3 of them and probably pretty panicked, they likely ran out of air pretty quickly and passed out.

A trunk is not air tight, they would not run out of air.

Most likely the kids got tired of pounding the trunk lid, and fell asleep or otherwise were too tired to keep banging.

Child endangerment? For what? Not watching their kids in their own front yard? Good luck with that one.

Besides, there was no guilt in this case - it was settled.

The city should bill the parents for the search efforts. The cost to taxpayers for this search must have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if it was unsuccessful, even if it was done improperly according to internal procedures, it was done.

The parents should receive a large bill for the search efforts.

Actually, they do. They are all involving cases where the negligence of the police lead to lawsuits.

Cantwell v. Allegheny County: Lab was negligent in handling evidence, lawsuit upheld

Fischer v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Dale Athmann, the City of New Orleans, and Jane Done and Clemente v. State: Cops didn't do their job of getting names at an accident. Negligence case upheld.

Clark v. Clabaugh: ederal appeals court rules that a showing of negligence would be a sufficient legal basis for imposing civil liability on city and police officials for failure to attempt to prevent racial assaults by white bikers on interracial group based on allegation that defendants had "actual knowledge" of conspiracy to cause impending racial disturbance

:shake:

A trunk is not air tight, they would not run out of air.

Most likely the kids got tired of pounding the trunk lid, and fell asleep or otherwise were too tired to keep banging.

Actually 3 scared screaming kids in a small trunk probably would exhaust the oxygen, even though they're not completely air tight.

What? Why?

Sometimes I wish the court take out the ability of cash settlement without admit wrong doing.

More just settling rather than paying attorneys........

Actually, they do. They are all involving cases where the negligence of the police lead to lawsuits.

Cantwell v. Allegheny County: Lab was negligent in handling evidence, lawsuit upheld

Fischer v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Dale Athmann, the City of New Orleans, and Jane Done and Clemente v. State: Cops didn't do their job of getting names at an accident. Negligence case upheld.

Clark v. Clabaugh: ederal appeals court rules that a showing of negligence would be a sufficient legal basis for imposing civil liability on city and police officials for failure to attempt to prevent racial assaults by white bikers on interracial group based on allegation that defendants had "actual knowledge" of conspiracy to cause impending racial disturbance


Although you have a point, there is a slight difference here.

In those cases, the cops were AWARE of something and protocol there is fairly rigorous. Documenting EVERYTHING at an accident scene, not ensuring public safety when there APPEARS to be a threat (upheld by witnesses is my guess).

In this case, you have families who are responsible for their kids. Protocol for missing children/ amber alerts are not as set in stone. For someone to say "the kids were likely alive when the police began the search" on its own is a meaningless statement. Remember the lady who sued McD's and the lawyer made the argument even if the lady (SUPER obese) had gotten up and pulled her pants away, she would still have been scalded.

After the trial, some group tested it and found had she been able to pull the pants away (if she wasn't so big/fat/slow), she would have been mostly fine.

This case isn't nearly as rock solid as the other cases you have. The police might have its share of the blame, but in this case, the parents failed the kids more than any other group.

Although you have a point, there is a slight difference here.

In those cases, the cops were AWARE of something and protocol there is fairly rigorous. Documenting EVERYTHING at an accident scene, not ensuring public safety when there APPEARS to be a threat (upheld by witnesses is my guess).

In this case, you have families who are responsible for their kids. Protocol for missing children/ amber alerts are not as set in stone. For someone to say "the kids were likely alive when the police began the search" on its own is a meaningless statement. Remember the lady who sued McD's and the lawyer made the argument even if the lady (SUPER obese) had gotten up and pulled her pants away, she would still have been scalded.

After the trial, some group tested it and found had she been able to pull the pants away (if she wasn't so big/fat/slow), she would have been mostly fine.

This case isn't nearly as rock solid as the other cases you have. The police might have its share of the blame, but in this case, the parents failed the kids more than any other group.
I'm going off the article in the OP that says there have been national protocols in place for years by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, include detailed search checklists.

Toyota agreed last year to pay the family of each boy $100,000.



What? Why?

Sometimes I wish the court take out the ability of cash settlement without admit wrong doing.

I can't imagine why Toyota would settle other than the $100,000 each would probably be cheaper than the legal costs to fight it. If there was some genuine liability on Toyota's part I doubt that the families would settle for a paltry $100,000.

I haven't seen it mentioned what year the car was that was parked in the yard. Being that this happened in 2005, and assuming that this was not a vehicle registered and being used (and I have no idea if it was or not) then I would also guess that it would be older than a 2001 model when all cars were required to have some sort of release mechanism inside of the trunks just for this type of situation.

I've often wondered about these release mechanisms and just how likely it is that a young child would be able to figure them out anyway when in a panic situation trapped in a dark trunk of a car.

I can't imagine why Toyota would settle other than the $100,000 each would probably be cheaper than the legal costs to fight it.

That's more than likely exactly the reason

A lawsuit of that magnitude would cost more than 100K each to start defending it. Even in a silly ex employee threatened lawsuit over wrongful termination, my attorneys quoted me 35K minimum. (It went away when his attorney figured out I was crazy enough to not settle for a few grand). Larger, especially public companies, have a harder time making that call. They think they're saving money by settling. Their also terrified of losing a large lawsuit for the bad PR. Settling it, and making it go away is the better choice, regardless of their lack of guilt.

3 dead kids is a scumbag attorney's wet dream. A jury would look at the poor grieving families, crying in court, and actual culpability would take a back seat to what can we do to make them feel better?..............And after all, Toyota has so much money....... they can afford it....

That's the reality of many lawsuits. I've been involved in a bunch, (mostly not as a party to them), and what actually happened is always low on the priority list. Most juries don't have enough average intelligence to understand anything technical. It's largely what you can make juries feel about the defender. If they expressed any sympathy at the time for what ever happened, well then, that proves it's their fault! Didn't express any sympathy? Heartless bastards, it must have been their fault!

That's more than likely exactly the reason

A lawsuit of that magnitude would cost more than 100K each to start defending it. Even in a silly ex employee threatened lawsuit over wrongful termination, my attorneys quoted me 35K minimum. (It went away when his attorney figured out I was crazy enough to not settle for a few grand). Larger, especially public companies, have a harder time making that call. They think they're saving money by settling. Their also terrified of losing a large lawsuit for the bad PR. Settling it, and making it go away is the better choice, regardless of their lack of guilt.

3 dead kids is a scumbag attorney's wet dream. A jury would look at the poor grieving families, crying in court, and actual culpability would take a back seat to what can we do to make them feel better?..............And after all, Toyota has so much money....... they can afford it....

That's the reality of many lawsuits. I've been involved in a bunch, (mostly not as a party to them), and what actually happened is always low on the priority list. Most juries don't have enough average intelligence to understand anything technical. It's largely what you can make juries feel about the defender. If they expressed any sympathy at the time for what ever happened, well then, that proves it's their fault! Didn't express any sympathy? Heartless bastards, it must have been their fault!

It's just like with the pirate ransom, classic collective action failure. If all companies refused to settle, companies would stop paying them out. But as long as it makes sense in an individual case to settle, companies will without some type of agreement.

I'm going off the article in the OP that says there have been national protocols in place for years by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, include detailed search checklists.

I agree there is a checklist, but the cops go on information provided by the parents. If the parents provided incorrect, confusing, etc. information and the police attempted to apply this to the checklist, it's possible the parents threw the police off.

Going by this, think of all the parents who reported missing children when the kid was really dead at home (the story in Mexico being the most recent one, yes Mexico doesn't follow National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but we have had US cases of this). The cops didn't find the dead kid at home until exhausting other means, going on info provided by the parents.

Your argument assumes this is some process that doesn't involve humans and is thus outside of the human condition. The police did everything they THOUGHT they to find the kids. The police have a SHARE of the blame here, but more than anything, these parents failed the kids.

Child endangerment? For what? Not watching their kids in their own front yard? Good luck with that one.

Besides, there was no guilt in this case - it was settled.

For several years now there have been public awareness campaigns reminding parents to LOCK their car when it is parked in their driveway. Keep keys up away from where kids could get them to possibly play in the car. Teach kids that cars aren't a place to play. Things like that.

Cars manufactured after Jan 2001 are required to have inside trunk releases but that doesn't help a child (or even an adult, if they aren't aware of it).

http://www.kidsandcars.org/trunc/protect.htm

I want to know what the parents were doing?( since they lost track of the kids)

What a damn joke. That's $2.25 million that the city of camden can't really afford.

Yep.

Camden, N.J., to lose nearly half its cops (http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/news/economy/camden_police_layoffs/index.htm?hpt=T2)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- There will be fewer cops patrolling the streets of Camden, N.J., come Tuesday.

Struggling to close a $26.5 million budget gap, the city with the second highest crime rate in the nation is laying off 163 police officers. That's nearly 44% of the force.

And Camden will also lose 60 of its 215 firefighters. Some people with desk jobs will be demoted and reassigned to the streets.

The mayor's office says that the cuts will not affect public safety.

:lmao:

"We're still going to protect our residents," said Robert Corrales, spokesman for Mayor Dana Redd. Public safety "will remain our top concern. We'll shift our resources to be more efficient with what we have."

:lmao: :lmao:

The slashing in Camden comes after city officials and the public safety unions failed to negotiate concessions that might have avoided some or all of the layoffs. The mayor was asking the cops and firefighters to pay more for their health care, freeze or reduce their salaries and take furlough days.

The unions responded with concession offers of their own, but the two sides could not come to terms. Police officers and firefighters have worked without contracts or raises since 2009 and 2008, respectively.

The moves will save the city about $21.5 million. The rest of the deficit will be made up through a 24% spending cut in every department, a 3% hike in city taxes and increases in various fees. Non-union city workers will have to take 26 furlough days.

:lmao:

Heh - last year the mayor wanted to double the salary of a few positions:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/camden_mayor_dana_redd_sees_to.html

According to the website of the office of the mayor, "But my most important goal and promise is that we are going to work together to enhance public safety initiatives, engage our city and to make sure our youth have safe havens."

http://www.ci.camden.nj.us/city/mayor_office.html

heh

Mentioned the number on the first page (from OP's article), but it bears repeating:

[...] The decision to settle was with the city's insurance company, Meadowbrook Insurance [...]

[...]

The city is liable for the first $300,000 of any litigation, McCoach said, and once that amount is exceeded Meadowbrook takes over and in this instance McCoach said he assumes the insurance company decided it was better to settle while giving no admissions of liability or guilt.

So the payout in the lawsuit in this thread only affects the city's budget an amount considerably less than the headline.

It is good to have insurance.

This wasn't the only cashing in they did, check this out:

Families settle with NJ city over car-trunk deaths (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iX7V15sXPD99jH_Oz1wrippw3OLAD9FAP3H01)

CAMDEN, N.J. � The families of three New Jersey boys who died in the trunk of a parked car as police searched for them have settled lawsuits against the city of Camden.

The families of 11-year-old Anibal Cruz, 6-year-old Daniel Agosto and 5-year-old Jesstin Pagan agreed to accept a total of $2.25 million.

Police scoured Camden after the boys vanished on June 22, 2005, but no one checked the trunk of the Toyota Camry parked in the Cruz family's yard. One officer looked quickly in the main part of the car, then moved on. Officials believe it's likely the boys were still alive at the time.

Toyota agreed last year to pay the family of each boy $100,000.

The city settlements were made last month. They were first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
WTF? How is it that Toyota is responsible for it? If the car model is before every car maker installed easy to find pull handle in the trunk...then it's really up to the owner to have one installed.

Why would you search for a missing kid if, when you make a mistake, you can get sued for millions of dollars should you not find them? Because that is their job. And it seems they got sured not because they could not find the kids but because they did not do their jobs correctly.

The settlement was the insurance company's decision. I think they judged poorly, because I don't think plaintiff had a case nor the money to pursue the case. But it's their money.

If I were on a jury, there's no way I would award this money.

I don't see why the parents of these kids haven't been hit with negligent homicide of their children. It's their own car on their own property. Their kids aren't really even "missing". The culpability for this has been placed on the wrong shoulders.

WTF? How is it that Toyota is responsible for it? If the car model is before every car maker installed easy to find pull handle in the trunk...then it's really up to the owner to have one installed.

I bet the parents locked their children in the trunk just to profit off of the mess. Oh yeah, I said it.

I don't see why the parents of these kids haven't been hit with negligent homicide of their children. It's their own car on their own property. Their kids aren't really even "missing". The culpability for this has been placed on the wrong shoulders.
True that...

Camden just laid off a bunch of Firefighters and Police Officers... I bet the community will miss them.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110118/NEWS01/110118079/1001/rss

By the end of Tuesday, 168 Camden police officers, 67 firefighters and about 113 civilian employees were out of jobs.

The settlement was the insurance company's decision. I think they judged poorly, because I don't think plaintiff had a case nor the money to pursue the case. But it's their money.

If I were on a jury, there's no way I would award this money.

Yep, it happens all the time with car accidents. Since they have the burden of legally defending you as well, they'd rather just settle.