A UVa law student is suing her professor, alleging that he assaulted her in class. Professor Kenneth Abraham was demonstrating simple assault to the class, and “tapped” Marta Sanchez on the shoulder. Sanchez now seeks $35,000 in damages from Abraham, alleging that the tap brought long-surpressed traumatic memories to the surface. “To expect I wouldn’t be bothered by this,” said Sanchez, “is to expect Holyfield not to be bothered by Tyson biting his ear.” Peter Savodnik has the story in today’s Progress.
News and meta-news about Charlottesville, VA, since 2001.
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
four six and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
This case is ludicrous.
I’ll predict that plantiff Sanchez has no future in law, beyond her current role in this case.
(And the Dean of the Law School might now start to question how this bozo was admitted in the first place.)
I think you posted this too quickly Waldo, hence your attribution of the “Tyson” quote/analogy to Sanchez rather than Abraham:
From the DP:
Anyhow, the analogy is ridiculous!
Seems like no matter how closely that I read some of these before posting them, I still manage to do things like confuse names. :) I’ve replaced “Abraham” with “Sanchez” in that attribution. Thanks.
Next time ask for a volunteer, and then have this volunteer sign a release of liability form before you start the demonstration. Or have the volunteer “assault” you.
Another lesson in the world of people wanting the law to protect them from the “possibility” of harm. If I meet someone and wish them a happy easter, am I now responsible if that brings up the a painful memory of the day their parents were murdered or if they happen to be jewish. It should matter if there were actual harm, doesn’t seem to be, and was there intent to do harm.
If this woman is right then the CHS 9 should thank their stars that this wasn’t the woman they attacked or she would not believe in “restorative” justice. She woud have had tem buried under the jail.
She woud have had tem buried under the jail.
Could it be that (the most excellent) Linton Kwesi Johnson is lurking in this forum?
As for the “CHS 9”, I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the reporters to find their ways into the courtrooms and report that which they are able (in terms of skills and editorial confidence, as the court confidentiality restrictions surrounding the adjuducation of most of those charged should be irrelevant now).
Someone for whom it is appropriate:
She works with horses!
Bugger off with this “horses” crap . . . or take it to IRC, private e-mail banter, or other, private means.
Now, I must say I disagree, Anonymous II. If you’re not interested in having a nuanced and penetrating discussion of the day’s issues that’s fine, but please don’t attempt to censor another’s contribution! Personally I think he makes an excellent point.
Could this just be a joke? Perhaps some sort of bizarre class project? I just have such a difficult time taking this seriously, from how it’s explained here.
·ż4?? must say I disagree, Anonymous II. If you’re not interested in having a nuanced and penetrating discussion of the day’s issues that’s fine, but please don’t attempt to censor another’s contribution! Personally I think he makes an excellent point.
What tosh. What more proof do we (outside of your clique) need to show that you might best take your giggling elsewhere — preferably into private.
You damn school girls (. . . and, yes, I did notice the “he” preposition in your obviously intimately informed description of the “horses” comment’s source — but your behaviour is still, nonetheless, both puerile and catty).
The student/plantiff is the “joke”, obviously.
You started saying something about school girls and just left the sentence incomplete! You can’t leave us hanging when it is school girls you are talking about!
Yet another case to bolster the idea that those who bring frivolous lawsuits really need to be liable for the defendant’s legal fees, all court costs, and any other associated expenses. This is waaaaaaaaaay beyond absurd.
> Bugger off with …
It’s great to see this site is reaching an international audience. So cultured.
NM
What is his point? What is it to work with horses?
Isn’t that one of the town’s “charms”?
>Isn’t that one of the town’s “charms”?
They say the yellow bikes are big in Copenhagen.
One could easily argue that said arms race has already begun.
This woman is an idiot.
Her attorney is even moreso — at some point, attorneys need to just say “no” to cases like this – each one of these lawsuits serves to further discredit their profession.
This girl needs to be taught that at some point, she must stop being a victim.
–jd
But I think that the problem with having the loser pay is that, once a case begins, every incentive is to spend more and more and more. Rather than lose $5, spend $1000 on attorneys in order to win. More importantly, once you’ve spent $500, go ahead and spend $10 more to help you win. Winning becomes so much more valuable, so spending should go up.
The big problem with all of that, aside from giving more cash to the attorneys, is that it finances the less well right out of the system. If some people feel like the courts are the domain of the wealthy now, that problem should only be exacerbated if a situation like you propose were suggested. That is, the completely impoverished have nothing to lose. But, the middle class, those with just some money, would be essentially banned from the even higher-stakes lottery that courts could become.
But, you complain, my arguments are all ex post. C’est vrai (how’s that for international posh?). As you say, ex ante, knowing that a losing case will be more expensive will keep these cases out of court. Probably true, but some of the losing cases we do want litigated, courts aren’t perfect and estimators of outcomes aren’t perfect (we could expect some sort of chilling effect).
Sorry for the long-winded response…
NM
NM
The attorneys comments read like a lecture. I especially like the line about the statement of facts.
It seems like the whole thing was concocted to teach torts.
link: http://128.143.211.168/032202.pdf
cultured or pretentious? The more time I spend in this town, the more I think that everyone is trying to pretend to be from somewhere *other* than here, usually New York, France, the UK, or Japan.
I don’t cotton much to Anonymous’ phrasing here, but the point is well taken–“she works with horses” is functioning as someone’s private little in-joke, it’s exclusionist, it’s juvenile, it’s stupid.
And “censorship” = prior restraint, which means it’s only censorship if you’re asking Waldo to not post certain posters’ comments or certain kinds of comments. Complaining _after_ something has been posted and telling the poster to knock it off is not censorship–it’s the normal rough-and-tumble give-and-take that is also known as conversation.
I hate seeing people misunderstand what censorship is and isn’t.
And just what do you mean by “Cr*p,” buddy? Is that some sort of secret reference?
Take that kind of shit to IRC.
A conservative (though decidedly not strict) reading of censorship as proffered by Anonymous III (the one criticizing the critic — how meta!) might (and certainly popularly would) allow you to say that censorship is limited to official prior restraint. But, a plausible reading (and I think that authors can fairly ask for plausible readings to at least be considered) might also include under censorship systemic popular outcry, creating an air of exclusion which would prevent further postings in advance. The censor’s status as official is only important so long as it gives him power to suppress. If, as I suppose Anonymous III believes, that power need not be absolute to constitute censorship, there is no reason that a chilled arena for speech couldn’t be considered an act of censorship.
Now, I am not saying that what we had here today necessarily constituted censorship, but, that’s the way he wants it. Well, as author, he gets it. The normal rough-and-tumble give-and-take could possibly rise to censorship once it starts preventing posting.
Also, there are all sorts of other responses to his censorship claim — I was just responding to Anonymous IX’s response above.
As an advocate of free speech and even without knowing what it means, I say to all of you: she works with horses!
I believe that he was showing them an example of the tort claim unwanted touching. The example would be ruined if he got permission or allowed them to do it to him.
That he was sued for just what he was explaining seems poetic.
So is legal prostitution.
The gender assumptions that some people make about anonymous posters (or the ones with non-gendered names, for that matter) on this site are baseless. If you have to use pronouns, use both genders — or better yet, just avoid the issue and say “the poster”.
for jury duty. It would take 30 seconds to find him innocent!
Anonymous III speaking:
You wrote, “Now, I am not saying that what we had here today necessarily constituted censorship, but, that’s the way he wants it. Well, as author, he gets it. The normal rough-and-tumble give-and-take could possibly rise to censorship once it starts preventing posting.”
Who’s the “he” in the first sentence–is it the one who said “take your ‘she works with horses’ elsewhere,” the one who said “that’s censorship,” or me (Anon III)? I’m trying to parse that part of your post, without success.
You’re right that prior restraint practiced by official or corporate bodies is just one definition of censorship. It’s the kind that we should be most concerned about, though; I think it trivializes the freedom of speech to claim that “popular outcry” after the fact of a speech act constitutes censorship. I, for one, am all in favor of popular outcry if that means that more people would stand up and say, loud and proud, “that thing you just said is STUPID,” in the hopes of creating exactly that “air of exclusion which would prevent further postings in advance.”
I have a very hard time with the idea that one person saying to another “what you just said is stupid and I wish you would take it to stupid-land” counts as censorship in any form. (LLC, I know that’s not what you were arguing; I’m speaking now to the original censorship-shouter). Criticism, no matter how rudely offered, does not equal censorship.
…and that’s why you would be invalidated for jury duty.