Re: Boston Globe (Finally) Weighs In On CCU Liability

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>]

On 10 Mar 2003 at 16:23, rogerkirk wrote:

> In cases involving negligence, is there not a requirement that the
> defendant must show that [s]he expended some "reasonable" effort to
> prevent the occurance?  

Only to the extent that the defendant had some duty to forsee and prevent the occurrence.  I 
don't have any duty to prevent a night club fire, even if I think one will happen.  The question 
is what relationship a defendant has to the event.

Johnny Cochran and OJ's other attorneys had a duty to do whatever he could within the 
bounds of the law and professional ethics to get OJ off.  And the prosecutors had a duty to 
do their best to confict him.  OJ had a constitutional right to have his guilt or innocence 
determined by a jury.

But if Johnny Cochran had helped OJ to plan a murder, or, knowing of a planned murder, 
failed to do what he could to prevent it, that would be a different matter.  Even attorney-client 
privilege yields to the need to prevent a serious crime from occurring.

Is a promoter of an event required to perform due
> diligence as regards the event being promoted?  Or are they on solid legal
> ground to accept simply as a matter of faith that what they are being paid
> to promote is legal and not fraught with "gotchas?"

I don't know how much of a duty the promoter has.  I'm sure there are a lot of lawyers on 
both sides busily engaged in researching the law on that very point.

-- 
A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 15 Court Square, Suite 210                 lawyer@attorneyross.com
Boston, MA 02108-2503           	         http://www.attorneyross.com