AEG去上诉法院要求撤销最后一项杰克逊家族的指控

MkGenie

法官已经驳回了杰克逊家族几乎所有的指控，只留下一项走向审判，那就是AEG在雇佣莫里这个问题上有疏失责任。

杰克逊家族向AEG LIVE索赔400亿美元。
# U+ k( [2 ^5 F0 U! y4 v% k/ Q6 _
以下内容待翻译：
* f7 f! ]$ {% ~' U5 b1 k
9 f" b7 ~# P- M4 ~9 t( v1 K
AEG Live goes to Court of Appeal to dismiss remaining negligent hiring claim
Court of appeals webpage

9 @4 O8 ]1 \6 B$ X$ L& y3 whttp://appellatecases.courtinfo. ... doc_no=B247338Court of appeals info

Date Description Notes
03/07/2013 Filed petition for writ of: Mandate/Stay Requested by AEG Live et al.
1 f% A9 X0 c2 f+ V$ K
6 o5 o( ], U5 b& s2 C* Y- o0 Y03/07/2013 Exhibits filed in support of: 13 Volumes of exhibits by Petr. AEG Live et al.
1 _, c  o6 F8 r0 F
03/07/2013 Filed document entitled: Unredacted Petition for Writ of Mandate by Petr. AEG Live et al.

03/07/2013 Filed document entitled: Unredacted Exhibits in support of Petition for Writ of Mandate (13 Volumes) by Petr. AEG Live et al.

03/08/2013 Order filed. denying petitioner's request for immediate stay
+ _3 s$ t( s6 T  r) R1 S, S. F4 b
03/11/2013 Order filed. re: Sealed Documents
. ]3 V: M- E; v+ ~+ {1 Y6 e8 u/ O# ^
' m$ E- O& {  i! k& W03/12/2013 Order filed. Petitioners ordered by noon March 14 to file complete set of unredacted copies of exhibits and petition which only redact matters which are subject to respondent court's February 23 2013 sealing order. At present the exhibits and petition redact matters which exceed respondent court's February 27 2013 sealing order.

0 ~, g  L$ g' l6 t! j/ s-----------------------------------------

Court of appeal filing document : http://amradaronline.files.wordpress...ackson-doc.pdf
& H! w0 Z) d, {; T1 w& ^4 f
-----------------------------------------

Summary

The documents starts with saying Jacksons seek $40 billion damages from AEG Live.

3 T( E0 f* W% L7 ^' jAEG is stating that the Superior Court had made an error because it didn't explain how AEG should have foresee Murray would administer Michael fatal Propofol given that Murray "may" compromise his oath due to his debt and Michael had addiction to painkillers years ago. AEG states that the law requires a more direct relationship.

AEG's lawyer also states this ruling is also creates the notion that people in debt are morally suspect and unfit for positions of responsibility even if they have taken oaths and do not have history of wrongful conduct. It also creates legal negligence to hire licenses professional with personal debts. AEG states this is a problem for California employers and workers.
& ?+ R% I9 T6 f! _& \
Some background
3 R- T, S0 J3 |! T$ j$ X3 {) W
As we know AEG and Michael have agreed to do a tour. Salaries of tour personnel were being advanced by AEG but later will be recouped from Michael's share of profits.

In late March early April 2009 Murray moves to LA and starts to treat Michael 3 times a week. Late April early may 2009 Michael told AEG he intended to bring Murray with him to London. AEG started negotiations with Murray, they were going to advance Murray's salary from Michael's share. When Michael died no contract were signed. Drafts of the contract said Murray was an independent contractor, it required Michael's signature, it said the parties have no rights or obligations to each other until the contract was signed. Michael's signature block clearly said he wanted Murray and was paying him from his own share of profits. The contract also required Murray to administer services "professionally and with greatest degree of care expected". It required Murray to have licenses in US and UK and maintain malpractice insurance.
& n( p5 X+ [* I
Michael died of Propofol overdose. DA charged Murray with manslaughter and a criminal court convicted him of manslaughter and gave him the maximum sentence.

+ [; q& r) Z; J$ W9 WMichael's mother and children sued AEG. 2 claims dismissed at demurrer, 3 remained. AEG filed a motion for summary judgement. 2 of the remaining claims dismissed, only negligent hiring claim remained.

AEG argued they could not foresee the risk Murray had because
) P9 m% c& D9 G0 y7 H1 l) f- Murray held licenses in 4 states including CA
- Murray never been disciplined by medical board.
- Murray has been Michael's personal physician for 3 years.
- AEG had no knowledge of Murray's confidential medical treatment of Michael.
- Contract required Murray to show "greatest degree of care"
3 p6 h' I" u* U5 T- Murray's administration of Propofol strayed so far from expected.
( r- h0 D% W$ h' _$ e  F( A- jury in the criminal case ruled that Murray showed "criminal negligence", found him guilty and he was given maximum sentence.
9 X2 q4 m. ~9 [+ ]& c
! q7 m# i  j. X5 Z# t8 T/ }( PCourt mentioned the following when it ruled there was triable issues
' A# B* p, o* Z& Q- AEG did not conduct a background check on Murray to show he was in debt.
- AEG was told Murray told he closed his practice in LV to go to UK
- Concerts would be Murray's only income.
" M2 f' i# v! R: m1 g& q& n; q- Murray did not have a medical practice at LA.
- f6 r9 N1 E# ~' ?' J2 ?- AEG had general knowledge that doctors sometimes compromise their oaths to administer drugs to artists.
2 P  o  G1 f0 Y9 S* i% p" X% e& D4 r- Other doctors were considered and rejected by parties before Murray.

& L7 v2 l# h2 \* O/ ]" @AEG states that the Superior Court made a mistake by allowing negligent hiring claim and explains
- L1 F3 s% o! g8 m+ s( ^6 [! k4 k- c
- There's no dispute that Murray was a licensed physician.
5 I: c. B( g  t# M; W& A# F& V% z1 s
& J3 j) ^8 g# c' J7 c9 _3 q- There's no dispute that Murray treated Michael for 3 years with no issues.

- AEG argues Murray's debt or Michael's past painkiller addiction would not make it foreseeable that Murray will commit criminal manslaughter by administering anesthesia to Michael in his bedroom. AEG states CA law requires a direct relationship between the "warning sign" and the harm suffered.

- AEG states there's no direct connection between Michael's 2009 anesthesia overdose and Murray's debt and Michael's past painkiller addiction.
9 U8 K: l5 v( t; n5 W" Z
- Courts ruling creates a legal inference that people with debt are morally suspect and unfit for positions of responsibility even if they have taken oaths and have no history of wrong conduct. This will be problematic for workers and organizations.
3 Z  h. ?5 M! R) j$ k1 ^" c! s
- AEG states CA law states a person has no duty to protect a person from a third party's actions, especially these are criminal conduct. Negligent hiring is a small exception but it requires knowing the employee causes a particular risk and that particular harm happening.

2 b3 j+ ?; D, @/ o5 s; DAEG states that Jacksons did not present any counter evidence to AEG's claims. Jacksons showed
- an extensive credit and judicial records would show that Murray was in debt
. ]9 I. m+ l7 {$ q4 w5 Y- F6 J% o9 s- Murray was not board certified
/ R+ _) ^4 w+ \1 z% j- this part is redacted but it's apparent that they are talking about Gongaware being aware of Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction
- Gongaware had a general understanding that physicians inappropriately prescribe drugs to musicians.
) h7 d9 d" G% w+ [- N+ V
: ?) M3 Y1 a+ W/ ^+ R9 X- Jacksons argue that as AEG knew Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction, they should have undertaken a through investigation into Murray, run a credit check / financial background check, or hire a private investigator.

  N$ L* c  q, y% ~9 @; S- Jacksons argue that Murray closing his practice might make him act unethical. Therefore they arguee that AEG should have refused Michael's insistence to bring his own doctor to UK.
4 t2 z. V# s. q( s" \
- o# r* t) ^! ~  T- AEG argues that Superior Court was wrong in saying Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction required AEG to run a investigate Murray's finances and AEG might be negligent in hiring Murray without knowing his financial condition.

- AEG says according to law what AEG knew about Michael is irrelevant. The negligent hiring claim is about the agent hired and caused harm. So the only relevant issue what AEG knew or should have known about Murray. AEG states they knew nothing that would put them on notice that Murray might overdose Michael with surgical anesthesia in his bedroom.
" K. c: c/ V! X" [! o- r( [
& J" r7 I8 F- S+ s: R- AEG says there's no law that evaluates a physicians competence based on pressure their patients could assert. AEG states it's wrong to question credentials of doctors because they treated former addicts or famous people. AEG says if this is the case no doctor would treat former addicts or famous people.

1 k9 z; w- `; y* ?" [- AEG states law says that a doctors competence is determined by licenses unless there's specific evidence of incompetence.

: J0 Q& Z3 h; P+ o# e- AEG states Superior Court also made a mistake in saying Murray's debt could be a factor in determining his competence.

4 F9 }6 t8 V9 t9 v* E0 c- AEG states personal debts do not make a person professionally incompetent. There was no reason to think Murray's debt would cause him perform poorly or commit manslaughter.

- AEG states there's no direct connection between the alleged warning (debts) and the actual harm (criminal manslaughter due to anesthesia overdose). There's no relationship between debt and medical malpractice.

- AEG says even though they have invaded Murray's financial privacy and did a credit check on him and uncovered his debts, they couldn't have anticipated that Murray would overdose Michael with anesthesia in his bedroom.
* `- J$ A$ i; C
- AEG states that Jacksons claim they should have known Murray was not board certified and this should show that Murray was unfit to deal with Michael's sleep and dependency issues. AEG states Jacksons could not show that AEG knew Michael's sleep issues, they were able to demonstrate Gongaware knew Michael's 1993 painkiller addiction issues, Jacksons did not show any evidence that AEG knew Michael had dependency issues 16 years later in 2009.
+ A3 P% H: J/ c2 Z# ^2 K! d& c
- AEG states board certifications is voluntary, there are a lot of doctors that aren't board certified but more than capable.
0 g1 Y2 _  s8 O8 _; {
7 K) z% \5 F' M. G6 o9 M& x7 xPublic policy
# ]! T. D; Y& C
% D8 R! B3 v; P2 V) N2 c- AEG states the two factors - Michael's 1993 addiction and potential for bad ethics in entertainment industry - would mean they could not hire any doctor in connection with the tour.

-AEG states this would create an impossible situation for concert promoters to never work with anyone that has a history of drug abuse.
; n7 m$ v" ^9 x. t8 a3 Y
% Z( ]& r" [+ n$ u6 p9 p6 c- AEG also states courts ruling mean that people with debt should never be hired as they can compromise ethics. AEG states this will make the current employment system fall.
0 g% I+ U5 Y# g2 B! t0 Y! @/ H3 M7 q
- AEG mentions recent laws that bars employers run financial credit checks or request credit reports on employees except exceptional situations. This law was amended because people who lost their jobs had no income to pay their debts would not be able to get jobs due to low credit scores.

2 f1 [; o( @7 r, Q2 c: d& o! [- AEG goes on hypothetical and asks should they refuse Michael's long term physician and force him to see someone he didn't know, how much debt is too much debt, should they not hire a recent graduate with substantial student loans, should they only hire doctors with no debts, but wouldn't any doctor closing their practice to go on tour with Michael wouldn't be subject to financial pressure,
* V# s: A7 X& x# j& Q/ Q! \/ W. q
Requests

! u, v, y+ F4 c9 F5 n' A# v- AEG wants the court of appeal to stay the court proceedings.
3 u; ]8 S2 V9 i
- Grant AEG's summary judgment - meaning dismiss the remaining negligent hiring claim
9 I& q2 z5 r5 F( K& |' X4 f; U0 f+ i
- or make the superior court explain their cause as why it did not dismiss the claim

MichaelHistory

等翻译，希望能顺利

whweifei

400亿美元,万恶的金钱~~~

张叉叉

进行到底！支持！

scarecrow

400亿这个数字悬了，但是希望可以告到AEG！他们的确有不可推脱的责任！

queenie3374

MJ值這個價, 但不是賠給這家族, 是給普天下愛他的人們,我們不是要錢, 要還MJ一個公道!!

Michael魅力

如果真的有证据可以成功的指控AEG，哪怕付出多大的代价都是值得。

不关灯的兔子

Michael果然是无价的