TexasCHLforum.com

Spotted this on another forum...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/natio ... 65347.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Judge: Mich. inmate can sue store he robbed, employee who shot him

Associated Press
11/04/09 11:38 AM EST

MOUNT CLEMENS, MICH. — A Michigan judge says a man who claims he was chased, shot and beaten by workers at a store he'd just robbed can sue the men. But only if he comes up with $10,000 within two weeks.

Scott T. Zielinski is serving an 8-year prison sentence after being convicted of unarmed robbery for the November 2007 heist at Nick's Party Stop in Clinton Township.

The 23-year-old filed a lawsuit against the store, its owner and three employees in April. Zielinski was shot twice and claims he was excessively beaten.

Circuit Judge David Viviano ruled this week that although Zielinski is indigent and imprisoned, he must post a $10,000 bond to cover the store and employees' attorneys fees if he looses the case.

Zielinski is seeking $125,000.

(BTW, nice "layers of editors and fact checkers" on the third-to-last word of the article... )

The other forum quoted this Michigan law:

600.2922b Use of deadly force or other than deadly force by individual in self-defense; immunity from civil liability.

Sec. 2922b.

An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:

(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.

(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28gl ... -600-2922b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 2922c.

The court shall award the payment of actual attorney fees and costs to an individual who is sued for civil damages for allegedly using deadly force or force other than deadly force against another individual if the court determines that the individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act and that the individual is immune from civil liability under section 2922b.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28gl ... -600-2922c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's no different than here it seems.

You Can sue anyone for anything pretty much. Doesn't mean you have a chance of winning.

If the laws above are correct, it's pretty certain that he will not win, as there appears to be a 'no civil liability' clause there, the same as we have here in texas.

To me is seems like the judge is saying "Uh, sure, you can sue him..., but I don't think you'll win, so you need to prove you can pay for their legal costs when... erm, I mean if you lose"

You know , theses days , you can find a lawyer that will help you sue anybody for just about anything.
I knew a lady that a guy broke into her home to steal things , sliced himself really bad and sued her and won.
What`s the world coming to??? Dang lawyers.... who take theses kind of things , what are they thinking ( besides the money they can get out of it).

I got all wound up about suing a contrator until a lawyer friend said what's the point if he doesn't have any money? That was that.

Was this anywhere near gun fearing liberal Chicago?

My company is getting sued for a wreck that our driver avoided and was not even a part of the accident. And the Plaintiffs insurance has already claimed fault and paid us for the damages to our vehicle and the DPS report cites them as being in fault and causing the whole ordeal.

Just proves the point how frivelous lawsuits are getting way out of hand.

Zee wrote:I got all wound up about suing a contrator until a lawyer friend said what's the point if he doesn't have any money? That was that.

Money is fleeting, but judgements last forever.

You never know when the guy might hit the lottery.

chabouk wrote:

Zee wrote:I got all wound up about suing a contrator until a lawyer friend said what's the point if he doesn't have any money? That was that.

Money is fleeting, but judgements last forever.

You never know when the guy might hit the lottery.

Where were you when I needed this info?

ELB wrote:Spotted this on another forum...

cover the store and employees' attorneys fees if he looses the case.[/b]

The AP doesnt have Spell Check? (looses???)

An update:

I got curious as to what finally happened in this case, and eventually figured out I could search the court records on line for Macomb County. As noted above, the judge said the robber would have to post $10K bond in order to pursue a case, because the law in this case allows the defendents to make a claim for costs if they win. The judge gave him until 16 Nov 09 to post the bond. On 16 Nov the defendents filed a motion to dismiss the case since no bond had been posted. There was a bit more legal wrangling (the plaintiff got to file a reply trying to convince the judge not to dismiss), but on 23 Nov the Judge granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss...without prejudice. Thus, I guess, if the robber ever comes up with $10K he can try again, I guess.

There was a lot of paperwork back and forth in this, and it appears it cost the robber $255 in court fees to pursue his case. The defendents -- about $60 total, for all of them. No info on lawyers' fees.

You can see for yourself here, search by name on Scott Zielinski.

http://macombcountymi.gov/pa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You will note that this is not Mr. Zielinski's first appearance in the court records....