The Thanksgiving Day Massacre

This time of year experts are full of advice to help Americans cope with holiday stress.  I think our own efforts to meet unreasonable expectations cause this annual misery.  There are parties we must host and attend. Holiday gifts are real budget busters.  Feasting destroys waistlines.  Excessive drinking damages relationships as it attacks the liver.  But the worst part is having to hang out with people we don’t like.  Most of the year you can avoid that smelly relative who doesn’t believe in baths, but you have to sit beside him at Thanksgiving dinner.

A group of doctors from a world-famous clinic recommends:

 “Try to accept family members and friends as they are, even if they don't live up to all of your expectations.”  Like all advice, this bit should be taken with a grain of salt and tempered with a massive dose of common sense. 

In Florida on Thanksgiving Day, 2009, Paul Merhige showed up at his family Thanksgiving dinner.  Paul’s uncle, the host of the party, had earlier told Paul’s parents that Paul was not invited.  Paul had a history of violence caused by mental illness. Shortly after his arrival at the dinner, Paul pulled out a gun and opened fire on his relatives.  He killed both of his sisters, his little niece, and his aunt.  He also shot his brother-in-law.  Lawyers for the survivors and the estates of the dead relatives sued Paul’s parents, claiming that Paul’s parents had told him about the party and invited him to come. Arguably this invitation subjected the family to “foreseeable danger.”

Over the years, Paul was involuntarily committed to mental health facilities on three separate instances because of his violent outbursts.  He repeatedly threatened to kill family members.  Refusing to let Paul live with them, his parents gave him a condominium, money, and a housekeeper.  Before the murders, the housekeeper had warned the parents that Paul wasn’t taking his psychotropic medications.  The Court found that “the depraved nature of Paul’s mind is unquestioned.”

The law has been reluctant to hold people liable for the criminal actions of others.  Exceptions to this rule include cases imposing liability against landlords who fail to take reasonable steps to protect tenants.  Businesses, employers, jailers, hospitals and schools may be liable when their negligence results in harm to customers, employees, prisoners, patients, and students.  In those cases, the courts have found a “special relationship” between the defendants and the injured parties.  This relationship imposes a duty of reasonable care.

In February, a Florida court ruled that there was no special relationship between Paul’s parents and their relatives.  They had no duty to refrain from action that would predictably result in the deaths of their daughters and their helpless six year old granddaughter.  It further found that imposing such a duty would violate public policy.  It said that “[f]amily members with psychological or behavioral problems are a common occurrence” and that “families should be encouraged to include a troubled family member in the family circle.”  It did not want to “discourage families from providing a haven to troubled relatives.” (Note that Paul has graduated from “depraved” to “troubled.”  Also note that while the Court envisions family gatherings as a “haven,” the Mehrige party was more like a slaughterhouse.)

The case evokes many reactions.  Gun control advocates argue that it is yet another example of the carnage caused by our nation’s refusal to enact gun control laws.  Their opposition claims that the case points to a need for everyone to have guns.  Had the host of the party been packing, Paul may not have attacked.  If he had attacked, his uncle could have stopped him with a bullet or two.  Imagine the happy family sitting around the dinner table with guns strapped to their hips.  It certainly gives a new meaning to the term “food fight.”  You’d better believe I’ll pass the potatoes – pronto.

An average citizen like me is in no position to resolve these debates in time for this year’s mayhem.  As I studied the case, I wondered what I would have done had I been at that Thanksgiving dinner when Paul showed up.  I’ve decided that once he appeared on the front porch, it was too late to do anything.

 Whoever invited Paul to the gathering put everyone in a no-win situation.  Calling the police, trying to leave, or ordering Paul to leave may have triggered an attack.  When crazy Paul walked in, folks did the only thing that seemed reasonable.  They tried to avoid making him angry and prayed that they’d get out alive.  Of course, it’s pretty impossible to avoid making “depraved” people angry.  They typically show up enraged – or “troubled.”

I don’t know about you, but the court’s ruling has certainly added to my holiday stress.  From now on, I’ll have to devise an escape plan in the event of the arrival of an uninvited homicidal maniac.  Perhaps it’s just easier to stay home.  While this doesn’t encourage the growth of strong family bonds, it may reduce the stress, murders, and suicides that accompany the holidays.  Perhaps we should just Skype or send a holiday email.  It would certainly be less stressful.  I’ll sign up for Skype tomorrow.

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving.

The Ouija Board Murder Trial

In 1993, London police found the bodies of newlyweds Harry and Nicola Fuller in their home in East Sussex, England.  Although Mr. Fuller, a 45 year old car dealer, was known to hoard “wads” of cash, police found little money at the home. The killer had shot Mr. Fuller once in the back.  Four separate shots took out his 27 year old wife.  The last bullet shattered her jaw and head as she called 999 for help.  The dispatcher thought she was hearing children playing and did not route the call to police.

Stephen Young stood trial for the double homicide.  The night before rendering their verdict, and allegedly after a drunken party at the hotel where they were sequestered, four members of the jury consulted a Ouija Board to ask Mr. Fuller’s spirit to identify his murderer.  Having lost the Board’s planchete, the four used an upturned wineglass to spell out the answer from Mr. Fuller.  The spirit – or spirits – identified Stephen Young as the killer.

Shortly after the trial, the court learned about the Ouija Board verdict and ordered a new trial for Mr. Young.  The second jury – without the benefit of a Ouija Board – convicted Mr. Young.  So, I ask you, based on this evidence, is the Ouija Board reliable?

If you require further evidence of its reliability, consider the manner in which the Ouija Board became patented.  Elijah Jefferson Bond applied to patent the Board in 1890.  The patent official initially refused to issue a patent because he did not believe that the Board actually communicated with the spirit world.  Bond suggested that they put the Board to a test.  The official agreed to issue the patent if the Board could answer a question – how to spell the official’s last name.  Bond put the question to the Board and amazingly – assuming the officer’s last name wasn’t Jones or Smith- the Board correctly spelled the bureaucrat’s surname.  The patent issued.  As you contemplate the wonder of this last tidbit, please disregard published claims that Bond, referred to by skeptics as a “patent attorney,” probably knew the officer’s last name from prior dealings with the office.  The ABA created the Patent Law section in 1893, three years AFTER the Ouija Board’s patent.  Accordingly, Bond was not a “patent attorney.”  It is true, however, that Bond was a lawyer who had previously patented many devices.  

 If you are still not convinced of the reliability of the Ouija Board, consider the recent research of well-respected cognitive psychologists who claim to have discovered the “inner zombie.”  Assume you are driving down one of two familiar routes that you take when you visit a friend.  Along the way, you think about the good times you’ve enjoyed with this person in the past.  When you arrive at her house, you can’t remember which route you took.  Scientists say that the “inner zombie” part of your brain did the driving.

Dr. Helene L. Gauchou, an imminent psychologist from the University of British Columbia, uses the Ouija Board to study this inner zombie.  She builds upon research conducted by Harvard psychologist Dr. Daniel Wegner.  She found that people who used a Ouija Board to answer obscure yes/no questions “got it right” 65% of the time.  Statistically, one would expect a 50% accuracy rate.  Scientifically, the 15% increase is significant.

I have no idea whether spirits or our own hands cause the movements that enable the Ouija Board to give us answers.  Perhaps, as ancient alien theorists have suggested, aliens from a far off galaxy are using the Ouija Board as a communication portal. Even without extra-terrestrial help, however, I can tell you one thing for sure. Although a jury’s use of a Quija Board may bring in the right verdict, it will certainly result in a mistrial.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

A Sudden Emergency

The man had been cheating on his wife for some time. One day, she became suspicious and followed her husband to a local trailer park.  There she saw a scantily clad female welcome him with a big kiss and drag him into the trailer.  After waiting an appropriate time – based on her experience with her soon to be ex-husband - the wife banged on the trailer door demanding to be let in.  The disheveled adulteress opened the door and insisted that she was home alone.  The wife barged past the trollop and stormed into the bedroom at the end of the hallway.  Not immediately seeing her husband among the bed sheets, she threw open the bedroom closet door. 

In the closet stood her naked husband tangled up among numerous coat hangers, shoes and skimpy clothes.  The wife screamed, “What the (numerous colorful expletives deleted) are you doing there!”

Faced with this sudden emergency, the husband answered as best as he could.

“Well,” he stammered, “Everyone’s gotta be somewhere.”

I’m sure he regretted the silly answer, but being cornered in a closet by his homicidal, screaming wife, I think he did pretty well for himself.  However, he wasn’t able to defend the adultery charge and the marriage was over. 

North Carolina law recognizes the “sudden emergency” defense.  If a person is faced with an unexpected emergency, the law considers the nature of the emergency in judging the reasonableness of the person’s conduct.  The defendant is not required to make the “wisest decision”, only a reasonable choice in view of the circumstances.

For example, assume you are driving northward.  Someone driving in the opposite direction on your street suddenly turns in front of you.  To avoid a collision, you swerve left, hoping to miss cars that may be traveling near you in the lane to your right and trying not to hit the car that just turned in front of you.  Unfortunately, you strike the car that turned into your lane.  The court would not hold you liable for damages to the car that you hit.  You did the best you could in the midst of the “sudden emergency.”

The North Carolina courts recently addressed another claim of “sudden emergency” in a medical negligence action.  Ms. Wiggins went into labor in June of 2005.  Hospital policy required a vaginal exam to be performed on a woman in labor before administering Pitocin to her.  The drug Pitocin induces and speeds up labor.  The exam would have made sure that all was well before the drug was given.  Ms. Wiggins’ doctor and nurses ignored that policy.

Five hours after the Pitocin began, a vaginal exam showed that the baby’s umbilical cord had “prolapsed” into the mother’s vagina cutting off oxygen to the baby.  An emergency C-section was performed, but the baby suffered severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen.

The defendants alleged that they were presented with a sudden emergency in this case and that they should not be required to meet the standard of care of a reasonably prudent physician or nurse who had plenty of time to consider the options.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the “sudden emergency” doctrine did not apply.  It reasoned that health care providers are trained to identify and treat possible medical complications and emergencies.  Accordingly, they should be able to make good choices in such instances.

I am a little confused by the case.  It would seem to me that the negligence occurred when the Pitocin was administered without first performing a vaginal exam as required by hospital policy.  When that mistake occurred, there was no emergency.  The emergency circumstances began five hours later when the prolapsed cord was detected.  From that point, it took 16 minutes to deliver the baby.   So, I don’t see why the sudden emergency doctrine ever came into play.

Nevertheless the court came to the same decision that I would have reached – the sudden emergency doctrine is not applicable to the Wiggins case.  But there is disturbing language in the opinion stating that the sudden emergency defense “is not applicable in medical negligence actions.”  We’ll have to continue to watch our courts for further instruction on this issue.

Looking back on it, I’m sure the philandering husband in our case felt he did the best he could when confronted by his “sudden emergency.”  However, like the defendants in the Wiggins case, it was his conduct before that “emergency” that triggered his problems.  As the old saying goes, “You stray – you pay.”