Latest news with #wrongfulDeath
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawsuit over teenager's suicide at Scheels in Eden Prairie will go to trial
The Brief Jordan Markie, 19, shot and killed himself at Scheels in Eden Prairie in August 2022. In August, his mother sued the store and an employee for negligence and wrongful death. The trial is set for October 2026, and is expected to last about five weeks, according to court records. EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. (FOX 9) - The lawsuit over a teenager's suicide at the Scheels in Eden Prairie in August 2022 will head to trial. The backstory On Aug. 22, 2022, Jordan Markie, 19, walked into Scheels in Eden Prairie and inquired about a handgun. He eventually ran off with it, loaded it with ammunition and shot and killed himself Surveillance video captured him arriving at the store, standing at the counter and eventually running away with the gun. In August, his mother, Sarah Van Bogart, filed a lawsuit against the store and William Ballantyne, the employee who handed her son the gun, accusing both of negligence and wrongful death. In April, District Court Judge Karen Janisch denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and later set a trial date. What the lawsuit alleges In the lawsuit, Markie's mother argues that the store and Ballantyne should have known that something was wrong and should not have handed the gun to her son. She described his behavior as "unusual" and said he was anxious, confused and fidgeting at the counter. Van Bogart said Ballantyne never asked her son for identification or tried to determine whether it was appropriate to let him handle the gun, the lawsuit alleges. In addition, the lawsuit points out that he was not 21, the age required to purchase a handgun. Everytown Law, the legal branch of the gun control advocacy group Everytown, is involved in the lawsuit as one of the attorneys for Markie's mother. What they're saying Neither Scheels nor attorneys for Markie's mother responded to requests for comment. What's next The trial is scheduled to begin on Oct. 26, 2026, and conclude on Dec. 4, 2026. In the meantime, attorneys on both sides will go through the discovery process, which involves gathering evidence.
CBS News
7 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
$6.1 million settlement reached in wrongful death lawsuit over Youngstown explosion
The family of a Penn Hills man killed in an explosion in Youngstown, Ohio has reached a multi-million dollar settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit. 27-year-old Akil Drake died last year after an office building in downtown Youngstown exploded when a scrap removal crew cut a natural gas line. Nine other people were injured in the blast. At least one person was killed and multiple people were injured in an explosion at the Realty Building along East Federal Street in Youngstown, Ohio on Tuesday. KDKA Drone Team / KDKA Photojournalist Brian Smithmyer Drake's family then sued the building owner and the gas company. CBS affiliate WKBN reported Tuesday that Drake's family settled the lawsuit for more than $6.1 million. The NTSB said that the four-person scrap removal crew was working in the basement of the Realty Building and didn't know the gas lines were in service. A crewmember told investigators he cut into one of the pipes he had been told was dead. The NTSB said its investigators found the service line was inactive, but it had been pressurized with natural gas at the time of the cut.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Yahoo
Police officer facing wrongful death lawsuit was given "valor" awards for fatal shooting
A former Kansas police officer whom prosecutors declined to charge in the 2022 shooting death of a man with a known history of mental health crises was twice presented top 'valor' awards by law enforcement groups for his actions during the fatal encounter. The ceremonies stand in sharp contrast to the federal wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Brandon Lynch, 27, a year ago. One of the commendations, a 'Gold Award for Uncommon Valor' presented by the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police on May 1, 2024, was handed out two days before the family filed its suit against the officer, Conner Thompson, and the city of Olathe. In the complaint filed in the District of Kansas, Lynch's family claims Thompson 'unnecessarily escalated the situation' and applied an 'unreasonable use of excessive force' that failed to consider proper crisis intervention training. Details of the awards — the first of which was given to Thompson by the Kansas City Metropolitan Area Chiefs and Sheriffs Association in November 2023 — have not been previously reported. A detailed review of the awards shows that Thompson and his then-partner were honored for what police say occurred on the night Lynch was fatally shot, New Year's Eve in 2022. Specifically, the Metropolitan Area Chiefs and Sheriffs Association said the officers 'responded to a disturbance' at a home where a woman called to say her brother had assaulted her. Once at the home, the officers told the woman to wait outside while they entered and were confronted by the man, who was armed with a knife and Taser, the group's narrative of events said. When the man 'continued to be aggressive' and did not obey orders, Thompson's partner attempted to use his department-issued Taser on him, but it was 'ineffective,' the narrative said. 'The suspect defied Thompson's commands and advanced towards both officers,' the narrative said. 'Recognizing the suspect was in close proximity of the officers, Thompson fired his handgun at the suspect, striking him.' 'During a tense situation, Thompson had the wherewithal to conduct life-saving measures,' the narrative added. The version of events offered by the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police was similar. Neither narrative mentioned Lynch by name nor explained that a dispatcher had relayed to officers that Lynch was exhibiting a mental health crisis, as his sister had explained when she called 911. Nor did the narratives note that officers had had prior encounters with him at the home, including one time in which Thompson was in a 'physical altercation' with Lynch, according to the Johnson County prosecutors who investigated the shooting and determined 'the officer properly used deadly force in this incident.' A review of the 'valor' awards given to other officers by the Metropolitan Area Chiefs and Sheriffs Association that year show they were for actions such as saving suicidal people, helping a gunshot victim and assisting an infant who stopped breathing because of a respiratory virus. The law firm for Lynch's family, Cannezzaro Marvel LLC in Kansas City, Missouri, declined to comment about the suit or the officer being awarded for his actions on the night Lynch died. The president of the Metropolitan Area Chiefs and Sheriffs Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Dennis Shaw, the executive director of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, said in an email that 'the officer was cleared by the District Attorney,' and the narrative the association shared 'was presented to us for consideration.' While the honor given to Thompson stood out in the awards ceremony, it's not unheard of for officers to receive commendations related to fatal shooting incidents. Narene Stokes, whose son, Ryan, was fatally shot by Kansas City, Missouri, police in 2013, recalled feeling 'baffled, angry and confused' when she learned the officers involved in his death were recognized with awards by a local police board for their actions. The award, however, was later rescinded. 'The officers want to say they feared for their life — and that's why they get an award?' Stokes said. In Lynch's case, police bodycam video was made public when Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe announced that his office would not be charging the officer. 'Lynch took the actions that caused his death,' he said in May 2023, and 'the officers reacted to the aggressiveness of Lynch throughout that episode.' In their lawsuit, the family says Lynch repeatedly told officers to 'get out,' and informed them he was trying to clean to avoid a new plague. He then shouted, 'I'm not going anywhere near you,' and went back to his bedroom and closed the door. The officers then followed him and opened his bedroom door. Thompson 'immediately pulled out a taser weapon and aimed it at Brandon after opening the door despite Brandon not making any threats,' according to the suit, adding that the officer then 'pulled his firearm and aimed it at Brandon less than fifteen seconds after pulling his taser,' in actions that could be seen in the bodycam video. Officers then told Lynch he was under arrest as he became 'increasingly agitated and asked the officers to leave his house multiple times,' according to the suit. When the officers 'started to back down the hallway,' Lynch followed them to an upstairs living room, where the situation escalated. 'Throughout the interaction, the officers escalated the situation by pointing guns, shouting commands, and threatening Brandon,' the suit said. 'Crisis intervention training teaches that these tactics exacerbate the situation and are counterproductive in addressing a person in mental health crisis.' The officers stood at the threshold of the home's front door, roughly 15 feet from Lynch, while he paced the living room. In the bodycam video, Lynch says, 'What did I do? I didn't do anything. Get out of my house,' as officers repeatedly tell him to put down his weapon and warn him if he takes one step forward, 'I will shoot you.' A Taser is used on Lynch in the living room, but he appears unaffected. Lynch again says 'get out of my house,' taking a couple of steps forward, at which point an officer opens fire, the video shows. The family's lawsuit says that additional officers arrived at that time. 'Thompson was not in danger at any point during the moments leading up to the time that he took Brandon's life,' the family's complaint says, and he 'was not in danger of being harmed by Brandon because [Thompson] was standing at a safe distance outside of the striking zone and the front door was a barrier between' the officers and Lynch. 'Despite other officers being on the scene while these events unfolded,' the suit says, 'none fired their weapon except' for Thompson. An Olathe city spokesman referred questions to the Olathe Police Department, which declined to comment "due to the ongoing civil litigation." Thompson resigned from Olathe last year after five years on the force and was later hired by another police department in Washington state. He did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment. The city filed a motion to have the family's suit dismissed, saying Thompson's 'use of lethal force was objectively reasonable under the circumstance presented' and he 'is entitled to qualified immunity,' a doctrine that can protect government officials, including police, from civil litigation when acting in their official duties. Last fall, however, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson ruled that 'these allegations, accepted as true, state a plausible claim that Officer Thompson recklessly or deliberately brought about the need to use deadly force.' Now, the judge has ordered both the city and the family to reach a resolution in the case, otherwise it could go to trial later this year, court records show. The family is seeking unspecified damages for pain and suffering as well as costs associated with Lynch's death, including funeral expenses and medical care provided. In a statement after the family's suit was filed in May 2024, its lawyers said 'the use of deadly force in a situation where non-lethal options were viable is not only unacceptable, but also a clear violation of Brandon Lynch's rights.' 'This unfortunate event highlights the urgent need for reform in how law enforcement handles interactions with mentally ill individuals,' the lawyers said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Yahoo
Sullivan County Sheriff's Office sued for wrongful death related to 2024 BRMC incident
GREENEVILLE, Tenn. (WJHL) — The widow and family members of a man who died days after an 'active shooter' incident at Bristol Regional Medical Center in May 2024 have sued the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office and multiple officers in federal court. The 26-count suit alleges that officers mistook a mental health crisis for a drug-induced high and escalated their force against Matthew Stoddard in an initial encounter on May 21, 2024. As previously reported by News Channel 11, the married father of three from the Chattanooga area had taken his family away from their home, and they'd stopped and entered a home in Sullivan County without invitation to ask for directions. The owners arrived and called 911, and eventually deputies arrested and handcuffed Stoddard. Deputies took Stoddard to the Sullivan County Jail that night, and soon after transported him to BRMC. The next night, a sheriff's office report claimed, he tried to take an officer's weapon at the hospital. In the struggle that ensued and involved multiple deputies, Stoddard lost consciousness and never regained full awareness before dying at a Chattanooga medical facility on July 13. PREVIOUS: Man involved in Bristol hospital shooting died weeks later; family seeks answers The lawsuit claims wrongful death, outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery and a host of other counts, including excessive force that violated multiple constitutional rights. The suit points to what it says were four separate violations of Stoddard's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights: That deputies engaged in 'excessive tightening, tugging and jerking of Mr. Stoddard's handcuffs and ankle shackles which caused Mr. Stoddard to suffer from open wounds at the cites [sic] of his upper and lower extremities.' That they mistreated a mentally disturbed Stoddard while he was in the back seat of a patrol car being taken to the jail, what the suit calls 'psychological torture' that also involved 'freezing out' by rolling the windows down at a high speed. Treatment on arrival at the jail alleged to include punching, kicking, striking with fists, using shock devices and otherwise beating up Stoddard 'while he was handcuffed, held down, shackled, and in a restraint chair.' The final alleged violation occurred at BRMC. A Sullivan County officer is alleged to have entered Stoddard's room, where two security guards were restraining him. It claims the officer 'placed his knee on the upper back of Mr. Stoddard while attempting to secure Mr. Stoddard's arm' and that the pressure applied 'caused Mr. Stoddard to asphyxiate and die.' According to the lawsuit, an autopsy report conducted by Emily Cook of the Jenkins Forensic Center said among the pathological diagnoses was 'complications of sudden cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury in the setting of police restraint.' That report, according to the lawsuit, determined Stoddard's death was caused by 'complications of sudden cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury in the setting of police restraint, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, and morbid obesity.' The lawsuit says the autopsy found the manner of death as homicide and that it 'identified that Mr. Stoddard became unresponsive after officers were attempting to restrain him while prone.' Attorneys for the family include local lawyers Corey Shipley and Christopher Rogers, as well as Atlanta-based Eric Hertz. They offered the following statement: 'We chose to represent the Stoddards because this is a deeply troubling situation with a tragic outcome. Allegations of misconduct by law enforcement must always be taken seriously. When someone is found legally responsible for causing harm to another, they should be held accountable — regardless of their position or status in society. 'A society is ultimately judged by how the powerful treat the vulnerable. Everyone, no matter the circumstances, is entitled to the protection of their constitutional rights. The purpose of this lawsuit is to ensure that our clients' constitutional rights are upheld and that accountability is pursued where it is due.' The suit was just filed Wednesday. Sullivan County Attorney Dan Street said he had no comment on the suit, but added that 'Sullivan County will defend itself and its officers.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBC
22-05-2025
- CBC
Judge allows lawsuit alleging AI chatbot pushed Florida teen to kill himself to proceed
A U.S. federal judge on Wednesday rejected arguments made by an artificial intelligence company that its chatbots are protected by the First Amendment — at least for now. The developers behind are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company's chatbots pushed a teenage boy to kill himself. The judge's order will allow the wrongful death lawsuit to proceed, in what legal experts say is among the latest constitutional tests of artificial intelligence. The suit was filed by a mother from Florida, Megan Garcia, who alleges that her 14-year-old son Sewell Setzer III fell victim to a chatbot that pulled him into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship that led to his suicide. Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project, one of the attorneys for Garcia, said the judge's order sends a message that Silicon Valley "needs to stop and think and impose guardrails before it launches products to market." The suit against Character Technologies, the company behind also names individual developers and Google as defendants. It has drawn the attention of legal experts and AI watchers in the U.S. and beyond, as the technology rapidly reshapes workplaces, marketplaces and relationships despite what experts warn are potentially existential risks. "The order certainly sets it up as a potential test case for some broader issues involving AI," said Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, a law professor at the University of Florida with a focus on the First Amendment and artificial intelligence. WATCH | A warning about AI voice scams: Manitoba woman warns of AI voice scams 8 days ago Duration 2:04 A Manitoba woman is speaking up after getting a phone call she said was an AI scam impersonating a loved one's voice. One expert says using the use of artificial intelligence by fraudsters is the latest in phone scams. Suit alleges teen became isolated from reality The lawsuit alleges that in the final months of his life, Setzer became increasingly isolated from reality as he engaged in sexualized conversations with the bot, which was patterned after a fictional character from the television show Game of Thrones. In his final moments, the bot told Setzer it loved him and urged the teen to "come home to me as soon as possible," according to screenshots of the exchanges. Moments after receiving the message, Setzer shot himself, according to legal filings. In a statement, a spokesperson for pointed to a number of safety features the company has implemented, including guardrails for children and suicide prevention resources that were announced the day the lawsuit was filed. "We care deeply about the safety of our users and our goal is to provide a space that is engaging and safe," the statement said. Attorneys for the developers want the case dismissed because they say chatbots deserve First Amendment protections, and ruling otherwise could have a "chilling effect" on the AI industry. 'A warning to parents' In her order Wednesday, U.S. Senior District Judge Anne Conway rejected some of the defendants' free speech claims, saying she's "not prepared" to hold that the chatbots' output constitutes speech "at this stage." Conway did find that Character Technologies can assert the First Amendment rights of its users, who she found have a right to receive the "speech" of the chatbots. She also determined Garcia can move forward with claims that Google can be held liable for its alleged role in helping develop Some of the founders of the platform had previously worked on building AI at Google, and the suit says the tech giant was "aware of the risks" of the technology. "We strongly disagree with this decision," said Google spokesperson José Castañeda. "Google and are entirely separate, and Google did not create, design, or manage app or any component part of it." No matter how the lawsuit plays out, Lidsky says the case is a warning of "the dangers of entrusting our emotional and mental health to AI companies." "It's a warning to parents that social media and generative AI devices are not always harmless," she said.
