4 ms·

Some legal background: this is filed in California state court. I believe it's a wrongful death action. Usually, in California, suicide defeats a defendant's li

by phrz 6y ago

Some legal background: this is filed in California state court. I believe it's a wrongful death action. Usually, in California, suicide defeats a defendant's liability, as it is an unforeseeable, "superseding cause" that breaks the causal link between the defendant's conduct and the injury. Yet causation can be established if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant's conduct triggered an "uncontrollable impulse" to commit suicide. If the decedent was still able to control himself and realize the nature of the act, then liability is precluded.

Hydraulix989 6y ago
My understanding is that the family could have chosen to file it in Illinois state court, but intentionally chose California state court instead.
dahfizz 6y ago
> If the decedent was still able to control himself and realize the nature of the act, then liability is precluded. How does one prove something like this in court?
- phrz 6y ago
  Not legal advice, but it seems like it boils down to an insanity test where that insanity deprives the act of suicide of its voluntariness. The "irresistible impulse" test used to exist in California penal law, and is what got Lorena Bobbitt acquitted. To prove it in this context, it would certainly help to have testimony about a descent into insanity that was apparent to those around the decedent, or even some medical evidence, but the very short timespan here makes that evidentiary basis far more difficult. I do not know enough about the caselaw to say whether taking the time to write a suicide note like that tends to evidence voluntariness; anecdotally, it seems like a contemplative act that would show that the decedent understood what he was about to undertake. If you can grab a copy, Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal. App. 2d 898 (1960) is a good overview of the law and an example of when there isn't enough evidence. Grant v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co. 81 Cal. App. 3d 790 (1978) is an example of when a suicide can be linked to the defendant's conduct (negligence).

by phrz 6y ago

Hydraulix989 6y ago

My understanding is that the family could have chosen to file it in Illinois state court, but intentionally chose California state court instead.

dahfizz 6y ago

> If the decedent was still able to control himself and realize the nature of the act, then liability is precluded. How does one prove something like this in court?

phrz 6y ago
Not legal advice, but it seems like it boils down to an insanity test where that insanity deprives the act of suicide of its voluntariness. The "irresistible impulse" test used to exist in California penal law, and is what got Lorena Bobbitt acquitted. To prove it in this context, it would certainly help to have testimony about a descent into insanity that was apparent to those around the decedent, or even some medical evidence, but the very short timespan here makes that evidentiary basis far more difficult. I do not know enough about the caselaw to say whether taking the time to write a suicide note like that tends to evidence voluntariness; anecdotally, it seems like a contemplative act that would show that the decedent understood what he was about to undertake. If you can grab a copy, Tate v. Canonica, 180 Cal. App. 2d 898 (1960) is a good overview of the law and an example of when there isn't enough evidence. Grant v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co. 81 Cal. App. 3d 790 (1978) is an example of when a suicide can be linked to the defendant's conduct (negligence).