Ex-kidnapper sues his victims

For those of you who believe that our criminal justice system has reached its absolute limit of insanity, Yahoo! News offers conclusive evidence that it hasn't....

Quote :

Man sues former hostages, says they broke promise

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Can there be no trust between a kidnapper and his hostages?

A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from authorities is suing them, claiming they broke an oral contract made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police. The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Jesse Dimmick of suburban Denver is serving an 11-year sentence after bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009. He was wanted for questioning in the beating death of a Colorado man and a chase had begun in in Geary County.

The Topeka Capital-Journal (http://bit.ly/skb0Rl ) reported that Dimmick filed a breach of contract suit in Shawnee County District Court, in response to a suit the Rowleys filed in September seeking $75,000 from him for intruding in their home and causing emotional stress.

Dimmick contends he told the couple he was being chased by someone, most likely the police, who wanted to kill him.

"I, the defendant, asked the Rowleys to hide me because I feared for my life. I offered the Rowleys an unspecified amount of money which they agreed upon, therefore forging a legally binding oral contract," Dimmick said in his hand-written court documents. He wants $235,000, in part to pay for the hospital bills that resulted from him being shot by police when they arrested him.

Neighbors have said the couple fed Dimmick snacks and watched movies with him until he fell asleep and they were able to escape their home unharmed.

On a "WTF?" scale of 1 to 10, I'd say this suit rates at least an 8.7. 9.9 if it actually goes to trial.

If this guy has an attorney involved in this farce, I shall weep for my profession.

Those poor people. As if their whole nightmare hadn't been enough already.

No paperwork with a signature?

No?

Out the suit goes.

Yeeeeah. This is going to be dismissed out of hand.

Anyone can TRY to sue someone, so people really need to stop screeching OH OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM fdjk;lasjfjds;wharbargle until after a judge decides not to throw out a case.

the asylum wrote:

No paperwork with a signature?

No?

Out the suit goes.

And even if there were a signed contract, the Rowleys would argue they'd signed it under duress. His name should be Dimbulb.

Isn't there some sort of law that says that any contract you enter (legal or not) while a crime is being committed is null and void?

Oral contracts... Not worth the paper they're printed on.

Spoiler:

Aggie wrote:

Isn't there some sort of law that says that any contract you enter (legal or not) while a crime is being committed is null and void?

In all fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Well, unless a guy is threatening to rape you and you wind up saying "yes" so he won't hurt you. Then it magically becomes consensual sex.

the asylum wrote:

No paperwork with a signature?

No?

Out the suit goes.

I believe oral contracts can be binding. It depends on jurisdictions.

Even so, contracts entered into "under duress" are usually void. I think some lunatic in your living room counts.

Also, as fucking laughable as the hostage taker's suit is, why isn't anyone a little annoyed with the hostage's suit? $75,000 for "emotional stress," give me a fucking break. I highly doubt that, due to the "emotional stress" you suffered, you're somehow $75,000 worse off. Sue for any tangible damages plus a few thousand for your trouble, $75,000 is ridiculous.

Besides, THEY should be paying the police because the police had to take their time to bail these idiots out of a jam. If they had the brains to own LOTS AND LOTS OF GUNS they could have solved the problem themselves.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

the asylum wrote:

No paperwork with a signature?

No?

Out the suit goes.

I believe oral contracts can be binding. It depends on jurisdictions.

Even so, contracts entered into "under duress" are usually void. I think some lunatic in your living room counts.

Also, as fucking laughable as the hostage taker's suit is, why isn't anyone a little annoyed with the hostage's suit? $75,000 for "emotional stress," give me a fucking break. I highly doubt that, due to the "emotional stress" you suffered, you're somehow $75,000 worse off. Sue for any tangible damages plus a few thousand for your trouble, $75,000 is ridiculous.

Besides, THEY should be paying the police because the police had to take their time to bail these idiots out of a jam. If they had the brains to own LOTS AND LOTS OF GUNS they could have solved the problem themselves.

It's not all that uncommon for some people to experience PTSD or something akin to it after such an event, but I dunno in this case since they were feeding him snacks and watching tv with him... sounds like they handled the situation rather sensibly. It's not like he tied them up or anything, though it'd still be a pretty big surprise to have someone burst into your house like that. I would hope that they're using the money to install better security in their house, and maybe help if their "emotional stress" is that bad.

A purely oral contract is not legally binding. When will people get that?

Geez, what people will sue for nowadays...

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

A purely oral contract is not legally binding. When will people get that?

Geez, what people will sue for nowadays...

Actually, it can be binding. Not always, but it definitely can, so long as the same steps are followed as a written contract: an offer, acceptance of the offer, and "consideration," which essentially means proper compensation/payment.

(Sorry, just started studying for another Bar Exam.)

ETA: But, no, "I promise not to blow your brains out if you hide me from the cops" is NOT consideration. It's a little thing called duress which renders a contract null and void.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

$75,000 is ridiculous.

Generally, people do not expect to ever get anywhere approaching that amount of money, even if they win their suit. However, any money that they do get from this will help defray the cost of counseling, medications (it's hard to get to sleep when one is constantly anxious because the crack of a branch outside might be a cat, or it might be another criminal), and so on. These things are expensive. So is a beefed up security system just to feel safer at home. So is lost productivity at work due to lack of sleep. So are the colds and sniffles and other consequences of a lowered immune response due to stress and anxiety. These are not easy things to put a price tag on, so the amount for emotional damages is going to be (seemingly) very high.

Yes, they handled the situation very well when it went down, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a complete meltdown the instant that it was over. Some people are like that, so you can't really judge how much emotional trauma was inflicted by how they react while the situation is on-going. You only know after the fact.

rae wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

$75,000 is ridiculous.

Generally, people do not expect to ever get anywhere approaching that amount of money, even if they win their suit. However, any money that they do get from this will help defray the cost of counseling, medications (it's hard to get to sleep when one is constantly anxious because the crack of a branch outside might be a cat, or it might be another criminal), and so on. These things are expensive. So is a beefed up security system just to feel safer at home. So is lost productivity at work due to lack of sleep. So are the colds and sniffles and other consequences of a lowered immune response due to stress and anxiety. These are not easy things to put a price tag on, so the amount for emotional damages is going to be (seemingly) very high.

Yes, they handled the situation very well when it went down, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a complete meltdown the instant that it was over. Some people are like that, so you can't really judge how much emotional trauma was inflicted by how they react while the situation is on-going. You only know after the fact.

Very true. And how much emotional trauma is inflicted from an incident varies. Several people could be in the exact same dangerous situation and have very different reactions. In July of 2002, someone busted into my house at about 2 AM, breaking through the front door (which it turned out was not properly installed) and trying to find a place to hide. He said that "Mexican gangs with guns" were after him. For my part, I was calm and kind to him at first, then after the cops came I shook with adrenaline, and then I went back to sleep and felt as safe as ever. My youngest sister's best friend was sleeping over that night, though, and she was so frightened that even after she went back to her job as a camp counselor, she couldn't sleep at night. Different people, different reactions--and both perfectly valid.