A woman accused of helping lure a boyfriend to a hotel room and gluing his penis to his stomach as punishment for his cheating ways says she and the other women went to the motel to confront the man and let him know they all knew what was going on.
Prosecutors say the women, including the man's wife and another girlfriend, lured the man to the motel to punish him for cheating. Court documents say the man agreed to be bound with sheets and blindfolded by one of the women, and that she used Krazy Glue to attach his penis to his stomach.
This is the type of story that the media loves, but as I look at it from the perspective of a personal injury case, here are my thoughts:
1. There is indeed an injury.
2. The criminal matter against the women involved in this case will definitely affect the personal injury action against these criminal defendants.
The women involved in this alleged battery have rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution. They each have the right to assert their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination. Now, why would that come up in a personal injury action? If the criminal action against the women in criminal court is at the same time the personal injury action is pending in civil court, discovery, in the civil court would be interrupted and delayed until after the criminal proceedings.
Discovery is the process, in a litigated case, where the litigants have an opportunity to find out information about the contested issues in a case. In a personal injury action based upon negligence and/or battery, a party is entitled to take the sworn testimony of the defendant to find out, under oath and punishable by perjury, what they claim happened. If the criminal matter is pending, it is unlikely that the defendant would agree to provide sworn testimony in the personal injury action while they are still subject to criminal liability. This happens all of the time in personal injury cases where drunk drivers injure innocent people. A lot of times the drunk driver will be charged with DUI. Often times the injury case will be put on hold while the defendant decides how to best defend his interest in the criminal DUI case.
I still recall a case I had when I was a first year lawyer. In that case, an innocent cab driver was struck by a drunk driver. We tried to take the deposition of the drunk driver in the personal injury case but the defendant asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination in the civil action because he was still subject to criminal liability. The reason his deposition was important was because in Illinois an injured party has only one year from the date of the incident to file a lawsuit under the Dram Shop Act. In sum, this act allows an injured party to recover from an entity that serves an intoxicating beverage to a person that contributes to the intoxication of a person that injures another. Without the defendant's testimony about where he was drinking it is difficult to find the potentially culpable Dram Shop.
3. It is unlikely that any of the criminal defendants and/or ladies involved will be covered under their homeowners' policies.
The ladies involved in this case are being charged with an intentional act. A very common and almost universal exclusion to homeowners' policies is to exclude insurance coverage for the intentional wrongful acts of an insured. For example, we all remember that O.J. Simpson was charged with the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. After the jury in the criminal matter found Mr. Simpson not guilty, a wrongful death suit was brought against O.J. Simpson seeking compensation for the wrongful death of Nicole and Ronald. A verdict was entered against O.J. Simpson in the wrongful death action. Although O.J. Simpson had a homeowners insurance policy, covering him for the negligent acts he could have committed that would have caused injury, this insurance policy did not cover intentional wrongful acts, like murder; therefore the homeowners policy in effect on the date of the deaths could not be accessed as a form to collect on the verdict obtained. O.J. Simpson had assets that could be attached to partially satisfy the judgment, but often times this is not the case.
In this Krazy Glue case, Mr. X, will likely have a difficult time collecting against these women (potential defendants) due to the lack of coverage that will be afforded to them by the insurance carriers providing the homeowners policies.
4. As a trial lawyer, I think one of the most important aspects of evaluating any injury case is to look at how the case would be perceived by normal people that will be sitting as a jury in this case. This injury, although shocking at first, will likely be seeking compensation primarily for pain and suffering during the time his penis was glued to his stomach. I doubt that there will be any permanent injuries that would allow Mr. X to be compensated for his inability to engage in activities he did prior to the event. This would limit the amount of money he would be entitled to for compensation since the law is simply to compensate a person for the nature, extent and duration of the injury. Also, it is likely the jury would be less sympathetic to the victim given his past behavior. While it certainly doesn't justify a battery, he is not the most sympathetic victim.
Source: Chicago Sun Times
