The claim arises from the police killing of Christopher Burgess last summer. The Times Standard has the story. The claim was filed just before the six-month deadline for personal injury claims against a government entity. She is represented by David Dibble, a local attorney who is no lightweight.
These claims are routinely rejected. In fact, in my opinion the whole tort claims act is a bit of a fraud. Ostensibly it’s to allow government entities to attempt to settle the matter out of court. However, in my 12 years of practice I’ve filed probably about 50 of them and only once has an entity attempted to settle the matter prior to my filing a complaint. It’s really about shortening the statute of limitations for government entities and catching indecisive claimants unaware.
Once the government rejects the claim formally, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit. I should mention that six months is not always adequate time to investigate a matter and sometimes we attorneys simply file the claim in order to buy another six months. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a lawsuit will be filed. The fact that it was filed at the last minute suggests the possibility that Ms. Burgess and her attorney have not yet decided whether to file. These cases are very tough, and you need to have your ducks lined up pretty well before tossing it into “delay-reduction” hastened discovery processes.
The officer who killed Burgess has been cleared by all of the appropriate agencies in terms of criminal charges, including Gallegos’ office. But the civil court standard of proof is also considerably lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard which governs criminal cases.
48 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 28, 2007 at 11:04 pm
irritated
I feel bad that she lost her son. But why is she dragging this out?
Why do people sue when their own actions result in less than desirable consequences? (in this case, her son’s actions).
The officer was cleared of any wrong doing.
It really seems like she just wants to profit off of his death.
April 28, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Anonymous
irritated: You’ve got it right. If you read the accounts of what happened you will realize that the officer is lucky to be alive. This was a mother who washed her hands of her own son while he was alive. It was left to others to attempt to raise him.
April 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Eric V. Kirk
If you read the accounts of what happened…
Surely you recognize the danger of firm opinions based thereupon.
April 28, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Anonymous
If the cops tell you to stop, fall to the ground, and show your hands, DO IT FOOL!!
Children need to learn deference to the cops. You can always sue ‘em later if they are truly off base, but cooperating in a situation like that, will hopefully ensure you make it through your arrest alive.
Drawing a knife (large, small or otherwise…) running, or threatening a ‘peace’ officer in anyway, will quite likely ensure you do not survive. Those f-ers are armed to the gills and they shoot to kill!!
The mom? Don’t even get me started. Isn’t this just part of natural selection Darwin and all that..
April 29, 2007 at 12:46 am
Anonymous
gotta agree with the above poster,when the police tell you to stop,FREEZE….
April 29, 2007 at 1:35 am
Anonymous
What about threatening an officer with a 10 inch knife? Is that OK?
April 29, 2007 at 1:42 am
Anonymous
no
April 29, 2007 at 1:59 am
Will
I heard about an incident that happened a couple days ago in which a EPD Officer pepper sprayed an individual with Cerebal Palsy because he couldn’t walk in a straight line! Has anyone else heard about this? I am sure I got the story 10th hand or so, but I was wondering what really happened. I was also told that the Eureka Reporter told the Time Standard not to report this incident.
April 29, 2007 at 2:09 am
Anonymous
Oh yes and the T/S will hold off on a story becasue the E/R tells them to?! What planet have lyou been living on.
April 29, 2007 at 2:11 am
Anonymous
Eric, that’s a pretty good explaination of how the system works. That’s information useful to the general public and especially bloggers.
April 29, 2007 at 3:21 am
Eric V. Kirk
Eric, that’s a pretty good explaination of how the system works. That’s information useful to the general public and especially bloggers.
But not nearly as useful in a court of law.
April 29, 2007 at 6:27 am
Anonymous
say what?
April 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Anonymous
hey now that there is some possibility of a cash settlement of course the mom is getting involved, her meth supply is getting low, I appreciate law enforcements recent focus on the meth problem, but meth heads are violent, and sometimes need to be shot. unfortunatelty it is the nature of meth to make people psychotic.
April 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Anonymous
She should file a rightful death claim. She would have a chance of winning that one.
April 29, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Anonymous
I say we hook her up to the old ball and chain and let her break rocks with a sledgehammer until she has repaid her debt to us.
April 29, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Anonymous
She will most likely collect. It will be cheaper to pay the $10,000.00 than fight the lawsuit.
Lawyers in this kind of lawsuit win no matter what the outcome.
There should be a law, that if a lawyer brings this kind of lawsuit to the courts the lawyer should fined and sanctioned.
The policeman was found innocent of any wrong doing in the death of Burgess. End of sad story!
April 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Anonymous
It’s a lot cheaper to shoot the mentally ill than to help them. It’s cheaper to hate than to care. I get it, the system really does work! Why don’t they explain this in the newspapers?
April 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Anonymous
If it is your only defense against the mentally ill; kill or be killed. Then yes.
There is no sense in putting it in the newspapers, some people just don’t get it. Indeed, it is a sad story.
April 29, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Anonymous
If the city of Eureka paid the $10,000.00 that would not end it. This is just the first step. And The lovely Marge B. and her lawyer would not be happy with a mere $10,000.00. They have visions of sugar plum fairies handing over Millions of dollars. I’m happy to see some people see Marge B. for what she is.
April 29, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Anonymous
There are lots of people out there biting their tongues over politeness to the families involved. If they thought about it fairly, I would imagine that even the families would have to accept that the kid was out of control. Why would society owe anything to a family that birthed and raised a detriment to that same society?
If the kids own family can’t control him, or be responsible for him, what the hell chance does society have to take care of him. Again, sad story.
April 29, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Eric V. Kirk
She will most likely collect. It will be cheaper to pay the $10,000.00 than fight the lawsuit.
Public entities rarely settle these claims. To deter others from suing, they will spend 50 grand to fight a 10 thousand dollar suit. Insurance companies often do the same thing.
That’s why I take Dibble’s involvement very seriously. He obviously has information the rest of us don’t have.
April 29, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Anonymous
The only thing the plaintiff has in this case is the attacker’s age. If he was a 50 year old white guy, it would be all over. Shoot a deranged (anything but a straight white adult male) and some combination of self serving interest groups smelling publicity and money will swarm you.
The case is a dead loser, legally, but a gold mine for those addicted to attention.
April 29, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Invariably, there is more to a case than meets the casual eye. Invariably.
April 29, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Anonymous
Actually, Eric, sometimes there’s not. And one has no idea what to what or whom you refer by the term
“casual eye”. The essential facts have been on display here for some time, as well as some sound inferences which can be drawn from the official handling of the matter. It is uncontested that
the attacker was armed, high, desperate about something (can’t ask him now, he forgot to obey commands ) close to the officer and in the vicinity of a school. The officer was for all practical intents, alone. The law regarding use of deadly force, whether or not to retreat, etc, is long settled.
Sometimes a good cigar is just a smoke.
April 29, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Humbug
Isn’t this sort of like the OJ situation, or the difference between a criminal matter and a civil one? The police officer was found innocent of criminal behavior and “cleared by his bosses” but isn’t this suit more about whether or not this was a wrongful death. I am not all that knowledgeable about these issues, but I am wondering if the rules of evidence, burden of proof, and nature of the offense don’t change somewhat under this claim. Can you help us out here Eric?
April 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Anonymous
Good point 11:19am. Maybe Dibble is a good lawyer? Maybe he usually only takes good cases? The facts are pretty simple. All Dibble can do is play on the age of Burgess but the city can counter with his history of violence, his meth use, and his prior criminal record. Dibble can dig up or make up stuff about the cops. No doubt he’ll be going to town on any fact, inuendo, or rumor about Officer Liles. Dibble may get some “expert” to say the cops used bad tactics but that is very weak. Dibble pays for an “expert” to come up with the opinion that he wants, that happens all the time. An example is the “expert” in the Dinsmore case a few months ago. An “expert” hired by the defense (the county paid for it) to come up with a theory favorable to the crook and then state his/her opinion. Purchased testimony. It was obvious to everyone including the judge and the jury. If you do a little research you’ll find that past and current training for cops has a 21 foot rule or guideline with edged weapon or knife attacks. Meaning you don’t let a knife wielder get within 21 feet of you. Lots of articles on that from REAL experts, not ones getting paid $10,000.00 or more to testify to the version that goes along with the crook.
Marge Burgess is/was a pitiful excuse for a parent and a sad excuse for a citizen of the world. Now she wants money. She should be extremely ashamed of her actions. But people like her have no shame. The world owes them. Nothing is their fault. Shame on Dibble too.
April 29, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Anonymous
humbug
You can’t compare this to the OJ Simpson case. This shooting was investigated by the DA’s office, EPD, and the sheriffs Office. The victims were Probation Officers and Officer Liles. It’s my opninion that the DA does not like EPD and would jump at the chance to publically and criminally fry one of it’s officers, IF he could. But he can’t on this one. The facts here are so one sided that the DA cannot contradict them.
So you have the civil suit. Play on the fact the dead criminal was 16 years old, just a “boy”. But then he was a 5’10″ 165 pound boy with a big knife. The “boy” has a violent past (kicked out of school for bringing a knife to school). The boy had methamphetamone in his system. Everyone knows that meth users are violent, there is lots of evidence of that.
If you want to go after the cops this is not the one. The “just a boy” thing only goes so far.
April 29, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Eric V. Kirk
It is uncontested that
the attacker was armed, high, desperate about something (can’t ask him now, he forgot to obey commands ) close to the officer and in the vicinity of a school.
Is it uncontested? I don’t know that. How do you know that?
Bob – that is certainly the case, and it also may be that Dibble has come across some information which either impeaches or qualifies what has been reported in the papers. I’ve seen it happen over and over again where people make assumptions about a case and then attend a trial and hear something wondering “where did that come from?”
We know there were independent witnesses of some sort because the police and DA put out word that they wanted to contact them. To my knowledge nobody ever reported on what they had to say.
It may be as simple as it sounds. But I suspect that none of us posting was there.
April 29, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Humbug
I did not mean to imply I felt they had a good case, I was only curious if they had a case at all. I am still a little unclear on exactly what they are suggesting happened that entitles them to $10,000.
April 29, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Humbug
I was posting when Eric wrote his reply which answers some of my question.
April 29, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Anonymous
IF (big if) Ms. Burgess’ lawyer is blowing smoke, and wasting taxpayer money, he should have to pay some form of penalty. This kind of thing should not be tolerated.
First of all we have to put up with all the howling and crying about how poor young Burgess was mistreated, while he was allowed to swing wildly out of control. Now we have to put up with an unfair lawsuit. (allegedly) Is it the money? Isn’t there some legal organization that oversees wildly out of control lawyers?
No one will settle out of court, because of high moral principles. Meanwhile the taxpayer gets to pay ALL the bills. Why are we passively standing by? Aren’t we enabling lawyers to get out of control? Aren’t there any good and honest lawyers that get embarrassed and ashamed by these ambulance chasers? Is anything ever done about them?
No wonder taxpayers have such a poor opinion of the legal system. We also assumed Mike Nifong had evidence; “which either impeaches or (dis)qualifies what has been reported in the papers”. But it was not the case…What has happened to him? Most lawyers I know, are of unimpeachable integrity. So, why would they put up with all this out of control nonsense? Shouldn’t there be some kind of a penalty for frivolous lawsuits?
April 29, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Anonymous
I’ll pay higher taxes for this lawsuit to be fought, if that’s what it takes. We need our peace officers able to do their job correctly and not be dinged for it later. I believe we are safer today.
April 29, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Anonymous
I agree, but what if it turns out to be frivolous? Do still want to keep on paying?
April 30, 2007 at 12:21 am
Anonymous
And what makes you think lawyers are “of unimpeachable integrity” ?
I guess that’s true if you live in a Mary Poppins or Disneyland world.
If you took a poll I would bet lawyers would be at the top of the most dispised and distrusted profession. Present company excluded of course.
April 30, 2007 at 2:34 am
Nick Bravo
I think violent, crooked cops should be prosecuted by the law. Sadly, the thin blue line becomes the thick blue wall when it comes to justice in regards to criminal cops.
April 30, 2007 at 4:39 am
Eric V. Kirk
I did not mean to imply I felt they had a good case, I was only curious if they had a case at all. I am still a little unclear on exactly what they are suggesting happened that entitles them to $10,000.
Well, if a jury finds that he was killed without just cause the amount would most likely be in the hundreds of thousands – or millions if a jury was really pissed off.
There’s nothing to the 10 grand other than you have to indicate whether you are asking for more on the claim form.
IF (big if) Ms. Burgess’ lawyer is blowing smoke, and wasting taxpayer money, he should have to pay some form of penalty. This kind of thing should not be tolerated.
He hasn’t filed suit. All that’s involved at this point is a form that gets sent across the city council’s desk who then sends a memo to the city council who rejects it at the next meeting. Then a form letter is sent to the attorney who has 6 months from that point to decide whether to file.
April 30, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Anonymous
Eric, did I miss something
Was there no finding by the coroner of meth? That’s the high part.
Was there no knife? That’s the armed part.
Do witnesses not all confirm the attacker fled from probation and was yelling something about not going back? That’s the desperate part.
You really don’t like facts much, do you.
April 30, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Was there no finding by the coroner of meth? That’s the high part.
Yes, he tested positive for meth. As to whether he was high at the time, I don’t know.
Was there no knife? That’s the armed part.
I don’t know. I wasn’t there.
Do witnesses not all confirm the attacker fled from probation and was yelling something about not going back? That’s the desperate part.
Haven’t heard any statements from witnesses so I don’t know what they confirm.
Anything else?
April 30, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Anonymous
“I don’t know, I wasnt’ there”. Ok Eric your posts are going to get a lot shorter if you’re going to start applying that standard to yourself.
The only person there is Liles. So, I guess you are prepared to take his word for it, since
he was there, you weren’t.
I can see why you don’t do many felony trials. If you ever start, make sure it’s against yougo. I think Arnie and even Alan can probably hammer you flat.
April 30, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Eric V. Kirk
The only person there is Liles. So, I guess you are prepared to take his word for it, since
he was there, you weren’t.
I won’t challenge what he said. I also won’t challenge any witness who contradicts what he said. I wasn’t there. Neither will you.
I wouldn’t go into any trial assuming that a witness statement is true or false. I’ll present the evidence in the light most favorable to my client and let the judge or jury decide accordingly.
There is obviously a question about the evidence, or Dibble wouldn’t be stringing this out.
April 30, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Anonymous
“As to whether he was high at the time, I don’t know.”
If you have meth in your system you are high. It isn’t like cocaine, with a high that paks in 20 minutes and then is the come down.
It keeps you high for a good 8-12 hours. And meth users usually tend to think they need more before the high even wears off. So they snort more, keeping them high even longer.
Speaking from personal experience on this one. Thankfully I stopped after watching some friends ruin their lives over some shitty smelling powder.
April 30, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Anonymous
Well, some of us won’t bring a case unless we assume someone, preferably our side, is telling the truth. You do your thing,
I’ll do mine. But I bet your clients love it when you tell them you don’t assume they are telling the truth, but you will do your best to put on a good show for the jury.
As for Liles, again, there are no witness to contradict him. All Dibble can do is hire an expert to say that based on his or her training and experience, we should give Mom a huge slug of cash. He’ll get slaughtered.
April 30, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Eric V. Kirk
As it happens, I don’t have a client in this case. So, I reserve judgment until I review the evidence – if I review the evidence.
May 1, 2007 at 3:55 am
Anonymous
the facts of the case are not as important as the fact that we live in a very litigious society and anyone can sue anyone else for the silliest reason. there is the MCC’s suit for example, pure unadulterated cacaleepoop, as they call it in legal circles
May 1, 2007 at 4:13 am
Eric V. Kirk
Not quite true. You have to pony up costs if you lose, and sometimes attorney fees. You can also be sued for malicious prosecution and other theories.
You hear about the cases filed against people accusing them of witchcraft or for serving fattening food. When they get dismissed, it doesn’t always result in follow-up headlines.
May 1, 2007 at 4:50 am
Anonymous
10 grand?? Must not think much of her kid! Bogus Injury suits garner more payoff than that. Go for 10 million or don’t bother…
May 1, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Eric V. Kirk
This is how rumors get started. The form requires that you check a box if you’re asking for more than 10 grand. That includes the number 10 million, among others.
May 3, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Anonymous
Ms Burgess was in court yesterday in another matter. Seems like a local couple are seeking a restraining order against her because Marjorie either physically assaulted them or threatened to.
Wow, wonder how the jurors are going to like her on the stand?