Father of Man Killed in Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP Sues City, State for $3 BILLION For Actions and Inactions Leading To Hazardous and Lawless Situation

PJ Media ^ | 08/29/2020 | Jeff Reynolds

[SeekAndFind]

The father of the man killed inside Seattle’s CHAZ/CHOP zone has sued the City of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington for $3 billion. In the suit, the father’s attorneys claim that actions and inactions by local government authorities led to a hazardous and lawless situation that resulted in the death of 19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson, who went by Lorenzo.

According to KING 5 News, attorneys for Lorenzo’s father, Horace Anderson, released a statement:

“It is important to hold our government leaders accountable so this will not happen again,” said Attorney Evan Oshan in a prepared statement. “Those in positions of power must not be allowed to hide from their duty to act responsibly and protect citizens. With power and prestige comes responsibility!”

“The thing that we really need to focus on is that there was a, an individual who lost his life unnecessarily and he, it was predictable, it was preventable, and this should have never happened,” Oshan said.

Oshan said that he and his client hopes that the discovery process will also uncover who was to blame.

“I do know is that there was a police precinct that was given up. What I do know is that EMS did not come in and take care of Lorenzo as he lay bleeding. This was a totally lawless situation. It puts him in great danger and it was just wrong,” Oshan said.

This brings to mind Nick Sandmann’s lawsuits against the Washington Post, CNN, and others over misrepresentations of him while reporting on the March for Life. Once the trials were approved to proceed and discovery began, the media outlets were quick to settle.

Discovery may be more important than a settlement in this case, as the attorney notes,

[j.havenfarm]

Well, ok, thanks for the caps. I specifically said That, under California law, the police have no duty to protect. Only If they undertake to provide protection then they can be held liable for doing so negligently. That’s not a case here or there in California, that’s the central principle for measuring police liability in cases like this. I also said Washington law might be different

[KevinB]

I can only address this claim in light of California wrongful death law: there are sovereign immunity problems but I suspect it might be possible to get around them in this case.

It looks like Washington State has waived sovereign immunity for state and local governmental entities. I'm sure the attorneys who filed the suit made sure they were on solid ground on that issue before filing.

The Value of Government Tort Liability:Washington State's Journey from Immunity to Accountability

[higgmeister]

When I told my wife about this headlines she immediately said he should sue the Democrat Party too.

[V K Lee]

Was this the young man killed while in a stolen car?
So much as been seen/heard, incidents are a challenge to keep straight in remembering the smaller, perhaps unreported, details.

[higgmeister]

Yeah... I’m so sure he would’ve earned $3 billion in his lifetime

When I was stationed overseas, the liability was not only for the value of the injured animal but also the value for its successive offspring for generations.

[Fido969]

Boy, the city attorney better show up to court on time. A default judgement would hurt.

[Notthereyet]

Omgosh. j.havenfarm, I didn’t mean to come across as screaming at you. I’m pretty sure it looked like that... So, so, sorry.

I probably should have put those words in italics so folks would know what I mean.

I, myself, was pretty stunned when I came across the article which covered the SCOTUS rulings about police vs being protected by the police.

Again, I am so sorry.

[PUGACHEV]

I don’t think the issue is wether the police had a duty to protect any specific individual. Rather, the city made a policy decision to withdraw the police from the CHOP area and allow the rioters to control it and the citizens inside. Was that decision a breach of the city’s duty?

[j.havenfarm]

See No. 42 for important information. “Duty” is a term of art. It looks like it
Might be different in Washington. In California the police would have no legal obligation to step in at alll and therefore couldn’t be liable for failing to do so. Example:
A police officer drives right past an injured motorist = no liability for failure to act if the guy dies. However if he stops to assist and directs the person to rest in an area where it’s reasonably foreseeable another car could injure him, and that happens, there could be negligence liability.

[j.havenfarm]

No problem. Thanks, FRiend

[PUGACHEV]

Again, the issue is not whether or not the city had a duty to guarentee or protect the safety of a specific individual, but rather whether the city’s decision to withdraw the police from the CHOP and ceed control of that neighborhood to unknown third parties, in this case Antifa, was a breach of its duty. These are different issues. The law review article you linked to in post #42 contains the following quote defining the city’s duty under Washington law: “But all misgivings about the legislature's intent were soon put to rest by the 1963 amendment to the same statute: The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages at ising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation."

The article goes on to discuss a distinction made in the Evagelical case between high and low level policy decisions, holding that the city enjoys immunity from the effect of high level decisions, and no immunity from low level policy decisions. Low level policy decisions are equated with managerial decisions, such as in this case how and where to deploy police resources. The city established a police force for the purpose protecting its citizens from crime. However, because it is entirely foreseeable that turning control of CHOP over to rioters by withdrawing the police from that area will lead to more crime, the implementation of that policy was negligent.

That’s the plaintiff’s best argument here.

[Irenic]

Good. I think they need to be in jail. (the mayor and governor)