Paterno family plans to sell DVDs of memorial f...

They might want to consider keeping some of the $ to cover the attorney's fees they are going to be building up. JoePa's estate will most likely be sued into oblivion.

What exactly will they be sue'd for Duxfan? Just curious... Cause ummm last time i checked he was covered legally. Think what you want of him morally but he's covered legally.

NAMBLA is a charity now?

Wow Rod, again with doing your name a disservice. You have got to be posting the dumbest stuff everytime there's a PSU or JoePa article. Can you at least try to bring some intelligence to your posting? Just when I thought your last post was dumb you post this an totally outdo yourself.

Doing my name a disservice?  I had no idea the real Rod Smart supported pedophilia....

Well there you go again. Rod Smart, or He Hate Me, hasn't been relevant for a very long time. You've just proven you are at least equally irrelevant. At least post something that has to do with the story instead of going for the laugh (and missing) all the time. Show us how "Smart" you really are and come up with something original.

What exactly will they be sue'd for Duxfan? Just curious... Cause ummm last time i checked he was covered legally. Think what you want of him morally but he's covered legally.

JoePa met the minimum legal requirements to prevent him from being charged with a crime.

Those minimum legal requirements will do nothing to protect him from civil actions.  A plaintiff may allege nonfeasance, in that JoePa created the peril to the victims after 2002 by failing to notify either the police or a child welfare agency.  They may rely on Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976), and claim that JoePa had a duty to warn all foresee victims, etc.  I'm not familiar enough with Pennsylvania tort law to go into more detail, but you can rest assured that JoePa (or rather his estate) can and will be sued, along with Penn State, Schultz, Curley, and anyone else they can drag into the case.

I'm not familiar enough with Pennsylvania tort law

The most truthful thing posted by Jack.

Tort law silly.  It's not my area of expertise, and I'm not going to waste time researching case law.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

the reason people think Joe can be sued is because that is what the media told them.
Simple..the media took Joes saying "in hindsight" to "I should of" and that they think is grounds to be sued.
it seems and I believe:

• Joe followed the law set forth by the State Of Pa,he can not be sued for that, the state of PA will be.
• Joe followed the guidelines / chain of command Penn State had in place at the time, PSU can be sued for that
• he was told that there was a investigation by University Police, so UPPD could be.
• he did not tamper with anything to the investigation, so he can not be sued for that

I think there are 2 law suits so far, and neither has Joe in it. It seemed the civil law suits stopped when the public was made aware that
the Grand Jury Indictment has so many inconsistencies

I'm sorry, but your reasoning, while logical, is not correct legally.  There is a significant difference between criminal law and civil law.  Crimes, since they have the potential to take away a person's freedom, have to be specifically defined and the proof required is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  A civil injury, known in legalese as a "tort" is very broad and the proof required is "a preponderence of the evidence."  As to your specific comments (simplifying it quite a bit):

• The state of Pennsylvania cannot be sued for what the law reads unless the law is unconstitutional.  Courts are loath to declare statutes unconstitutional and I don't see that the current law rises to that level.  On the other hand, JoePa can be sued under either of the theories I noted above or others.  The plaintiff would have to prove that he did not act as a "reasonable man" would have acted, and that the plaintiff was harmed by JoePa's refusal to act in a way that would have protected the victim.
• PSU can be sued for the guidelines, but it is more effective to bring in the university by suing its officers and employees.
• I don't recall that anyone was told that their was a PD investigation in the 2002 case.  For the 1998 case, the PD filed the case with the DA, who declined to prosecute.  The DA's office has prosecutorial immunity and can't be sued, and I don't see a cause of action against the PD in that case.
• Tampering is typically a criminal charge, not a civil tort.

Look, I'm not going to guarantee that JoePa's estate will be named a defendant, there are too many variables involved, but there are plenty of causes of action to file a suit against it.  For example, under Tarasoff,* a defendant owes a duty of care to all other persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks that make the conduct unreasonably dangerous. When the avoidance of foreseeable harm requires a defendant to control the conduct of another person, or to warn of such conduct, liability is imposed only if the defendant bears some special relationship to the dangerous person or to the potential victim.  All a plaintiff's attorney has to allege in his petition is that Paterno could have reasonably foreseen that Sandusky would endanger other victims and that he sould be either arrested or others be warned of the danger. (*Tarasoff has not been followed in all states, and I don't have a clue if Pennsylvania did or didn't follow it, nor what the variances would be, nor am I inclined to research it to determine the status of the law in Pennsylvania)

Whether Paterno acted reasonably under that theory is a question of fact for a jury, not a question of law.

I would suggest you run it past a local Pennsylvania attorney (even a JoePa supporter) and ask him if JoePa's estate can be sued.  I am confident in what their answer would be.

Oh, and a point I forgot.

What the media said or didn't say in this case has no bearing on my evaluation of the potential civil liability.

If a molested boy is already suing Jerry Sandusky and Penn State and Graham Spanier and Second Mile - why NOT sue Joe Paterno as well??

 A civil injury, known in legalese as a "tort" is very broad and the proof required is "a preponderence of the evidence."

You watched too much Wapner. ROFLMAO

Preponderence (sic) of evidence has no legal standing. What you are really writing about is what will convince a Judge or a jury that a suit has a basis to proceed, and that sufficient facts are then presented as indisputable proof that a liability is attached to the defending party. A jury can make a good or a bad decision based on the body of evidence presented, but if they make a bad decision any award will eventually be overturned or reduced on appeal. However, the case must be proved in fact ... it can't just be hinted at so strongly some mythic  "preponderance (I spelled it corrected if you want to pay attention) of evidence" is assumed to have occurred. LOL 

  

Hum, lot of stuff about lawsuits. Can you sue a dead guy? Wouldn't you have to prove the family knew about it to go after them? Lot more civilized here than over at ESPN, that place has become a watering hole for perhaps the dumbest/vilest commentators (comment section, not the writers) I've ever seen. Raping JoePa's grandkids for revenge? (Thankfully that one got deleted) Some real sick people out there.

You watched too much Wapner. ROFLMAO

Actually I prefer Judge Judy.

Preponderence (sic) of evidence has no legal standing. What you are really writing about is what will convince a Judge or a jury that a suit has a basis to proceed, and that sufficient facts are then presented as indisputable proof that a liability is attached to the defending party. A jury can make a good or a bad decision based on the body of evidence presented, but if they make a bad decision any award will eventually be overturned or reduced on appeal. However, the case must be proved in fact ... it can't just be hinted at so strongly some mythic  "preponderance (I spelled it corrected if you want to pay attention) of evidence" is assumed to have occurred. LOL

Entering into a case, you first have to file a petition (called a complaint in some jurisdictions) and serve the other party.  Like you said, you have to have sufficient facts to support whatever cause of action that you are pleading, however in the initial petition it is enough to state only such facts so as to give the defendant fair notice of the cause of action. 

If, as you claim, there is indisputable proof that liability attaches to the defendant, the case is over - the judge will issue a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.  If the defendant shows indisputable proof that liability does not attach, then they get a summary judgment in their favor.

There will be other motions, requests for discovery, depositions, etc.  All of these involve questions of law and are decided by the judge.

Note that all of this is way before any body of evidence is presented or the case goes to trial.

Once it gets to trial, then the evidence will be presented, normally to a jury, but sometimes before a judge only.  At the conclusion of the trial, the judge will give the jury instructions and a series of questions.  The judge will charge the jury to answer the questions using a standard of proof known as "a preponderance of the evidence" - which is far from mythical.  Judges define this for the jury in their instructions, such as the following example from the U.S. Fifth Circuit pattern jury instructions:

"A preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence that persuades you that the plaintiff's claim is more likely true than not true."
It then goes on to explain that if the jury finds that the claim is more likely true than not, the jury will find for the plaintiff.

As for spelling, I don't pay that much attention on message boards, and don't really care, but thanks for correcting me.

Let me know if you need me to explain the legal process to you in more detail.

I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be one but GJP is making sense.  Look up OJ Simpson's civil trial.  Found not guilty in criminal court (not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), OJ was found liable in the wrongful death and battery against Ronald Goldman and battery against Nicole Brown.  Civil cases have a different standard of liability.  


Look it up. 

OJ was the person on trial for murder. Sandusky is on trial for child molestation. Joe Paterno is not on trial for a criminal act. Your analogy is flawed.


Big Jack before you jump on me I am fully aware of difference between CRIMINAL and civil!

I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be one but GJP is making sense.  Look up OJ Simpson's civil trial.  Found not guilty in criminal court (not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), OJ was found liable in the wrongful death and battery against Ronald Goldman and battery against Nicole Brown.  Civil cases have a different standard of liability.