Big gun: Love's legal choice suggests hard-fought suit
-
The website of Louisa County attorney Charles Purcell (left) boasts of a "strategic alliance" with Sharon Love's attorney Irv Cantor.www.purcellpractice.com -
Many contend that only Huguely, shown here in his 2010 booking photo, should bear the blame.charlottesville police
If Sharon Love's first lawsuit had people scratching their heads and wondering if it was more symbolism than an actual effort to collect millions of dollars from a young man who will likely spend the next two dozen years behind bars, her second $30 million lawsuit, this one against UVA coaches and the Commonwealth of Virginia, raises no such questions, as the suit's lead attorney is known for a take-no-prisoners approach and plenty of big verdicts.
That attorney, Irvin V. Cantor, is founding partner of the Richmond personal injury law firm Cantor Stoneburner Ford Grana Buckner, and according to his bio on the firm's website, he's successfully litigated or settled nearly 1,800 cases in his 33 years of law practice including a $6 million verdict for a former policeman who was improperly intubated following a jet-ski accident and suffered brain damage, and a $5 million verdict for the deaths of two workers killed in an industrial explosion.
"He can handle a big case," says Hook legal analyst David Heilberg, noting that Cantor formerly served as president of the Virginia Trial Lawyer's Association. "You don't get that position if you're not respected."
In fact, while the attorney of record in Sharon Love's first suit against George Huguely is Richmond-based Mahlon "Bud" Funk, Cantor and his firm are also listed on court documents as counsel in that case. And furthermore, Cantor's connections may help explain why the second suit was filed in Louisa County: he has a "strategic alliance" with prominent Louisa personal injury attorney Charles Purcell.
Under the heading "The power of teamwork" on Purcell's firm website, Cantor and Purcell trace their relationship back to UVA Law School, where the two men were "classmates and best friends" in the 1970s. The site lists Cantor as founding partner of Cantor Arkema PC, which became the current firm in 2009.
Heilberg, who has suggested that Louisa juries are known for generous verdicts– particularly for local plaintiffs– says Cantor's connection to Purcell bolsters that theory and posits that if the case makes it to trial in Louisa, Purcell could easily show up in the courtroom, giving the jury a familiar face and, perhaps, added incentive to reward the plaintiff, even if she's an outsider.
"If you're a local in Louisa and want a big verdict, you almost always go to Charlie," says Heilberg.
Even for experienced attorneys, suing the state is a challenge because of the concept of "sovereign immunity"– the legal status that protects government entities, including UVA, from civil action unless gross negligence can be proven.
"If only one thing had happened, maybe it's just negligence," Heilberg says, noting it's probable that Cantor's firm took the case on contingency, a sign Cantor and his team believe it's a strong case.
"The theory," says Heilberg, "is that several things happened that the university should have known about and they still took no action." A receptionist at Cantor's firm declined to forward a reporter's call to the attorney, and said the firm would have no comment on the case.
As detailed in Love's May 3 suit against men's lacrosse coach Dom Starsia, assistant coach Marc Van Arsdale, athletic director Craig Littlepage, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Huguely's history of substance abuse and violent outbursts was extensive and allegedly known to his coaches.
In addition to a widely reported alleged assault on a sleeping teammate, for which the teammate required medical treatment for a concussion, Huguely also allegedly assaulted two other students– one, the daughter of his high school lacrosse coach, and a UVA men's tennis player whom he saw walking with Love.
Public opinion is divided on the legitimacy of Love's suit against the coaches and the school, with some suggesting that the blame ultimately lies only with George Huguely and others saying if blame is to be spread, it should be assigned evenly– including even Yeardley Love's survivors.
"Looks like the Love family missed that their daughter was in an abusive relationship. Who'll sue them?" comments one poster to the Hook's Facebook page.
For Avery Chenoweth, a Charlottesville writer who attended graduate school at UVA in the late 1980s and early '90s, the case may put a spotlight on a culture of violence at UVA he says he experienced firsthand.
"My experience with UVA was that everyone looked the other way as long as it didn't get too far out of control," says Chenoweth, who recalls being the victim of several unprovoked physical assaults by fellow students.
"I got attacked by frat boys, roughed up by football players," he says. "I remember it being fairly lawless around there."
While acknowledging that winning any civil case against the state may be difficult due to sovereign immunity, Chenoweth points to another legal concept that makes universities responsible, at least to some degree, for their student body.
"The University does have in loco parentis, and that puts them on the hook," says Chenoweth, pointing out that if Coach Dom Starsia had seen Huguely intoxicated the day leading up to Love's death and that a jury could decide his failure to act contributed to her death.
"I think he's going to have to go," says Chenoweth, who remains skeptical that Love's suit– even if successful– will spark significant change at the school.
"They don't want to really look at themselves as anything other than a brand," he says, pointing to Denison University's controversial 1995 decision to evict fraternities from their historic homes in Granville, Ohio. That move enraged alumni even as the school claimed the crackdown on underage drinking encouraged healthier behavior among students.
Chenoweth says he can't imagine UVA taking such radical action to change the culture of violence he believes fraternities, and, in some cases, sports teams, can foster.
"I don't think they do a lot of hard self-examination over there," he says.
University spokesperson Carol Wood refers inquiries about the case to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office, where spokesperson Brian Gottstein also declines comment.
Whether Love will prevail in either of her suits remains to be seen– and likely will remain unknown for years. Huguely is due to be sentenced on August 30, and the civil cases can't begin until the criminal process is complete.
36 comments
Why don't you tell us more about avery chenoweth so we can decide whether his opinion is relevant. I was there for 7 years and only saw two fights, both on rugby road, the entire time.
I, for one, am happy the case will be in Louisa. The parking situation in Charlottesville was terrible with all of the news crews.
Courtenay got a little lazy with this article. over 1/3 of the article is a string of quotes from Avery Chenoweth. Mr. Chenoweth is not a legal expert, carries a huge chip on his shoulder and appears to be someone who loves the sound of his own voice.
So much of what is good about Charlottesville is a direct result of the presence of UVA. If he wants to be in a small town with a religious pious school, there is always the rundown city of Lynchburg.
Avery is a well known writer and a fine person. I admire his courage to speak truthfully about his experiences at UVa. There are not many in Charlottesville who will speak out about this without fearing retribution of some sort. Thank you Avery !
Avery Chenoweth is a Charlottesville writer whose work has appeared in Harper's, Spy, Lingua Franca, and The New York Times. His novel-in-stories, Wingtips, was short-listed for the Library of Virginia Fiction Prize and nominated for the Sue Kaufman prize from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Avery has received fellowships from Yaddo, the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts and the Sewanee Writers Conference.
http://www.arnettandassociates.com/SpeakerDetails/27722/Avery-Chenoweth....
I am no fan of LU, but this violent act did not happen there. Or at Randolph College, Lynchburg College, Va. Union Theo. Seminary OR Sweet Briar. Perhaps before denigrating your neighbors, you should deal with your own stink. Eh, Crozet?
City resident -- that doesn't really tell me much about why he is worth listening to about fights at UVA. How did he manage to get involved in so many fracases? He sounds a little violent to me.
Lynchburg-Please forgive the poor judgement of the last comment. I could have promoted this city without denigrating another. Let me rephrase it and say that Charlottesville has developed a cosmopolitan worldly stature and amenities largely because of the presence of a fine institution such as UVA. Like everywhere, it has it downsides, but I hardly think it is the bastion of violence and drunkeness that Mr. Chenoweth portrays.
I understand how phrases can be poorly turned and thoughts poorly translated into speech. Charlottesville is great town both because of UVa and in spite of UVa. Lynchburg's relationship to each of its colleges/universities is the same.
I do believe there is surely violence that goes un- or under-reported because that exists everywhere. In this situation, Love's mother is searching for who is responsible for the death of her daughter. She is casting a wide net. Whether or not it is too narrow yet or too wide is not for me to say.
It's too bad that all this hype occurs as the students leave for summer break...The article states, "Chenoweth says he can't imagine UVA taking such radical action to change the culture of violence he believes fraternities, and, in some cases, sports teams, can foster."
Change will come when the STUDENTS and parents DEMAND change. There are no protests, no meetings, no demands by students. The current generation is complacent and concerned only for themselves. There has been zero questions from parents groups concerning campus safety despite all the media coverage. When they stroke the check for tuition , they ought to enclose a letter informing Ms Sullivan that she is responsible for the health and welfare of their children. The Board of Visitors is another weak group - at least the BOV at Penn State reacted swiftly and got rid of the coaches involved in their scandal. If that scandal happened at UVA it would have been brushed under the rug because the school would not react to it and your local prosecutors wouldn't have taken it to a grand jury.
Good Luck to the Love family. I am glad you have the fortitude to hold the University responsible. It will be many years, hang in there.
Why didn't they name the women's lacrosse coaches in this suit? Are we supposed to believe that they didn't know what was going on either? I mean, who was YL more likely to talk to about her problems w/ GH? The men's coaches? I doubt it. YL's coaches probably knew as much about the situation as Starsia and Co., so if they stood by and did nothing, they're just as culpable as the anyone.
Did Mrs. Love talk to the coaches about her daughter's abusive relationship? Why isn't she being sued?
Just like thowing Spaghetti at a wall with the thought that some will stick somewhere. The current legal environment is to throw a lawsuit at everyone possible and hope it sticks to a at least a few.
Sharon Love's pain is apparent to all by her actions. She seems to be lashing out at anyone who was connected to her daughter and Mr. Huguely. She is being controlled by her pain and will never be able to properly mourn her daughter until she lets go. I imagine she feels somewhat responsible for not knowing about the abusive relationship, but the victims in a case like this are good at keeping the details hidden. I pray she is able to heal and move on.
"I got attacked by frat boys, roughed up by football players," he says. "I remember it being fairly lawless around there."
What??? I saw more fights in one weekend at Radford than I did in 4 years at UVa, and I lived on Rubgy Road for 2 of those years. I certainly never saw anyone just get 'attacked'.
I wondered how Starsia got off so easily, in light of other coach's losing their jobs. Especially when it was revealed that so many lax players at the time had run-ins with the law? I'm mixed about Mrs. Love suing, but we all know the best way to bring about change is to go for the wallet.
The parking situation in downtown Cville might be better but Louisa only has one through East-West street, the courthouse is on it.
To Deborah Mullins,
I actually tend to agree with Ms. Love's approach. This is a good way to expose the scandalous behavior and systematic abuses that have gone on over the years and have been both tolerated and tacitly encouraged by the lacrosse community in particular and the athletic program in general. Ms. Love is trying to cut the Gordian Knot that has protected the lacrosse culture and community and unravel it for everyone to see. A civil suit can accomplish this through the deposing of all sorts of people connected with this tragedy. It's obvious at this point to informed people that almost everyone associated with the lacrosse program, both at Landon and at UVa, were well aware of Georgie's sociopathic tendencies. And Georgie wasn't the only bad apple in the rotten barrel. From cocaine and alcohol abuse, to sexual assaults, to any number of other violent deprivations, the lacrosse community needs to have its dirty laundry exposed, along with the sycophants who supported them, and I think that is part of what Ms. Love is trying to accomplish here. In the end it is probably best for lacrosse in the bigger picture to have a sort of reformation, especially since there is such a push to bring it into the mainstream of sports nationally. Good luck to Ms. Love.
'From cocaine and alcohol abuse, to sexual assaults, to any number of other violent deprivations, the lacrosse community needs to have its dirty laundry exposed, along with the sycophants who supported them, and I think that is part of what Ms. Love is trying to accomplish here'
I was never the biggest fan of the Lax team while I was a student, but this seems hyperbolic. How many players sexual assaulted females? How many used cocaine? You are characterizing the players in an unfair manner. Many of them ran in rich, prep school circles, partied hard, led lives a privilige, and often looked down their noise at students outside their social group but I don't think there were a number of "violent deprivations."
To most it would seem hyperbolic, but the truth will come out in the depositions and I believe a lot of people on the outside will be shocked. I'll stand by my assertions and we can have this conversation again after the civil suit.
Well, I hope we do have the truth come out. I wonder what we will discover about "violent deprivations"? Maybe we'll be lucky enough to find out what the heck that means.
If Mrs. Love is a true christian (the huge catholic funeral she gave YL with a Bishop no less) she needs to forgive and go on with her life. What's done is done, GH is going to prison case over. I'm afraid if she keeps digging she's going to hear things about her daughter that obviously YL's friends are protecting her from hearing. Who needs that? She was the parent not UVA.
I'm curious as to what UVA's founder and benefactor would make of all this. My guess is that Mr. Thomas Jefferson would have expelled all parties connected with this bloody affair and left them to their own devices, enabling the university to continue operating in what its primary focus is: education. What were Love's and Huguely's grades like? All the media martyrizes (new word) them as Greco-Roman heroes of a native American sport that has since become the United States' WASP answer to Britain's polo.
As a Baltimore native with some social connections with this case, I find it curious in all of Mrs. Love's much publicized piety and sorrow that she has commissioned a memorial statue to be erected in Baltimore County of her daughter. So, this begs me to ask the question of who and where are the funds going to come from? Ah, yes! The lawsuit earnings, if they go in her favor.
As tragic as this has been, Yeardley Love was not JFK. What next? A Love Library? Love field? Oops, wait there already was one in Dallas and we know how that turned out don't we? Love Hall? Love Highway? Love Quad?
Lord. I'm of the opinion that while Yeardley did not in any way, shape, or form deserve what happened to her, she was not a saint nor a role model. She was a lacrosse player, a sorority sister, and apparently a booze hound just like the rest of the members of UVA's lacrosse aristocracy.
Let's face it, George will live with this burden the rest of his life. His life is already over and will be in a constant state of Purgatory. This is now a media circus.
Oh, I forgot. Love Chapel or Our Lady of the Frat House.
Possibly poor old Gomer was trying to say "depravations", meaning that George was depraved. Despite the fact that he can't spell, one has to admire his attempts at rhetoric, with metaphors like "Gordian Knots" (which don't actually protect anything by the way) and "rotten barrels" chasing each other off the page.
At base though, it's just a bucket of unsubstantiated fecal matter thrown against a wall, seeing if anything sticks.
As I said let's wait and see what comes out at trial. My rhetoric or spelling error is not the issue here. Dom Starsia and the athletic department are the issue and no one in their right mind believes that they did not know about the abhorrent behavior that was going on with George and his teammates. Why is it that so many players had alcohol related incidents? The drug abuse issues will come out at trial as well. I think the fecal matter of which you speak is the proverbial sh*t hitting the fan, maybe you should move out of the way.
@Gallipoli...
And don't forget "Get Christy Love."
R.I.P.: Simon Oakland
@Liberalace
"All You Need Is Love"
"Planet Love"
"Love's Labours Lost"
"From Russia With Love"
"Love Actually"
"In Love and War"
"Love in an Elevator"
"Love in Vein"
It seems to me that people including Mrs. Love and the people from the shootings at VT and other schools are trying to get rich from the unfortunate deaths of their children. In all of these cases the guilty partie(s) have been punished, either by the courts or by their own hand. It appears to me that this is just a way to get rich or at least make some attorney rich as it is a well known fact that the person suing doesn't get but a very small percentage of any settlement, the attorny gets the lions share of it..
Another thing I would like to point out is that when these kind of lawsuits are filed and the jury awards a these large settlements, where does that money come from?
True, insurance companies pay and what the insurance companies do not pay the State will have to pay, but future generations of potential collage students are penalized by these awards, due to higher tuition costs, because the insurance companies will raise their premium costs for these policies and the state will raise tuition costs to cover their losses.
There are very intelligent kids out there who would love to go collage but cannot because of the prohibitive costs involved. Who knows, because of some lawsuit like this and others, the person who might have discovered the cure for cancer or some other illness, may not make the discovery, because they could't afford the costs of the tuition.
The coaches and schools should not have to be the people who look out for deranged people such as these were. If this is to be the case then all potential students to any school, whether elementary, high or collage should be given a "full" mental evaluation, (at the parents expense) to see if they are mentally stable.
It's the parents responsibility to care for their kids and to keep track of what is going on with them, up to a point, then it's the responsibility of the child himself or herself to report any problems, in the case of the VT shootings. People around him should have reported any bizzare activities on his part.
The bottom line is DON'T BLAME THE SCHOOL for mentally unbalanced people and hope to get rich from it.
UVA promotes a "Community of Trust" and they prosper because of the way they market their programs. UVA is a corporation that is interested in the almighty dollar - the only way to get them to apply proper protocol is to hit them with financial loss. If they settle with the Loves, they admit they do not follow the laws they so proudly boast they maintain. So does that then give all campus crime victims a right to sue? One has to think about this......
depredations?
I guess these articles get web hits, etc., for The Hook, but PLEASE Hook writers, take the time to get the facts and the legal concepts correct. Also, it would be nice if the paper would look for knowledgeable sources, rather than relying on folks like Chenowith who is not qualified to render most of the opinions cited in this article. It really is not that hard to produce stories conveying information that is factually and legally correct and which truly advances your readers' knowledge. So come on -- you can surely do better than the above . . . .
For example, the writer says, "As detailed in Love's May 3 suit . . . ," No, the referenced statements are merely allegations by the plaintiffs at this point. They should not be represented by The Hook or anyone else as "the truth," at this stage of the litigation.
Another unchallenged statement in the article was attributed to Chenowith -- "The University does have in loco parentis, and that puts them on the hook." Um, no. The prevailing rule today is that institutions of higher education NO LONGER act in loco parentis to their students. Students, from freshmen through seniors, are considered adults, and universities no longer have special, parental-type duties toward the students. In fact, the first of many hurdles for the plaintiffs in the second suit will be to establish that the Commonwealth/University and the named coaches had a duty to Ms. Love that extended to her private social relationships, off campus and outside school hours. I have not gone back and re-read the pleading, but I don't recall any such allegations in the complaint.
Then the article closes with the following untrue statement -- "the civil cases can't begin until the criminal process is complete." Wrong yet again -- both suits can go forward, and, in fact, time is ticking on the defendants' responsibility to respond to the suits. Those responses will either be "answers" -- point by point responses to the allegations in the complaint, or quite likely in the second case, motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege facts, even if true, that create a legal liability against the defendants. In the case against Huguely, it is likely the plaintiffs want to hold of on deposing him until not only the sentencing is complete, but also after any motions regarding the trial have been decided, because they hope that will preclude GH from taking the fifth. But, actually, he will be able to assert that privilege at least until any appeal of his conviction is decided, an maybe even there after.
There are interesting angles to the suits that The Hook should consider covering if the staff really wants to inform rather than just sensationalize the tragedy:
For example, how about a story on wrongful death law in Virginia? What are the elements and what are considered legitimate damages under Virginia Law? Is there any chance the Loves could net $30 M from these cases? What is joint and several liability? What would the impact be of a large, even if only symbolic, award against Huguely on any possible recovery against the Commonwealth and the coaches? How might that affect the order the plaintiffs will seek to try the cases? Then you could compare how the allegations here and the damages sought measure up. Such a story would inform and provide a more meaningful backdrop for comments than the one above.
How about a more detailed story on Louisa as a venue? Is it likely to hold up? What is the Virginia law on venue?
How about an in-depth profile of the plaintiff lawyers? Rather than looking at websites and gathering an off the cuff comment from your legal analyst, how about a fully researched story. If you do that, be sure and include Bob Hall, the co-counsel from Northern Virginia. I am sure your readers would be interested in his partnership with a grief counsellor, who works with plaintiffs on how best to express their grief to a jury, in order to up the damages awarded.
It is interesting that the Love's chose big-time plaintiff's lawyers to fill second lawsuit. That choice of counsel does belie the contention of some that the suit is about principles, or a desire to affect change in the "university culture." These lawyers don't make a living off of 30 to 40% of "principles."
I guess these articles get web hits, etc., for The Hook, but PLEASE Hook writers, take the time to get the facts and the legal concepts correct. Also, it would be nice if the paper would look for knowledgeable sources, rather than relying on folks like Chenowith who is not qualified to render most of the opinions cited in this article. It really is not that hard to produce stories conveying information that is factually and legally correct and which truly advances your readers' knowledge.
For example, the writer says, "As detailed in Love's May 3 suit . . . ," No, the referenced statements are merely allegations by the plaintiffs at this point. They should not be represented by The Hook or anyone else as "the truth," at this stage of the litigation.
Another unchallenged statement in the article was attributed to Chenowith -- "The University does have in loco parentis, and that puts them on the hook." Um, no. The prevailing rule today is that institutions of higher education NO LONGER act in loco parentis to their students. Students, from freshmen through seniors, are considered adults, and universities no longer have special, parental-type duties toward the students. In fact, the first of many hurdles for the plaintiffs in the second suit will be to establish that the Commonwealth/University and the named coaches had a duty to Ms. Love that extended to her private social relationships, off campus and outside school hours. I have not gone back and re-read the pleading, but I don't recall any such allegations in the complaint.
Then the article closes with the following untrue statement -- "the civil cases can't begin until the criminal process is complete." Wrong yet again -- both suits can go forward, and, in fact, time is ticking on the defendants' responsibility to respond to the suits. Those responses will either be "answers" -- point by point responses to the allegations in the complaint, or quite likely in the second case, motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege facts, even if true, that create a legal liability against the defendants. In the case against Huguely, it is likely the plaintiffs want to hold of on deposing him until not only the sentencing is complete, but also after any motions regarding the trial have been decided, because they hope that will preclude GH from taking the fifth. But, actually, he will be able to assert that privilege at least until any appeal of his conviction is decided, an maybe even there after.
There are interesting angles to the suits that The Hook should consider covering if the staff really wants to inform rather than just sensationalize the tragedy: For example, how about a story on wrongful death law in Virginia? What are the elements and what are considered legitimate damages under Virginia Law? Is there any chance the Loves could net $30 M from these cases? What is joint and several liability? What would the impact be of a large, even if only symbolic, award against Huguely on any possible recovery against the Commonwealth and the coaches? How might that affect the order the plaintiffs will seek to try the cases? Then you could compare how the allegations here and the damages sought measure up. Such a story would inform and provide a more meaningful backdrop for comments than the one above.
How about a more detailed story on Louisa as a venue? Is it likely to hold up? What is the Virginia law on venue?
How about an in-depth profile of the plaintiff lawyers? If you do that, be sure and include Bob Hall, the co-counsel from Northern Virginia. I am sure your readers would be interested in his partnership with a grief counsellor, who works with plaintiffs on how best to express their grief to a jury, in order to up the damages awarded. It is interesting that the Love's chose big-time plaintiff's lawyers to fill second lawsuit. That choice of counsel does belie the contention of some that the suit is about principles, or a desire to affect change in the "university culture." These lawyers don't make a living off of 30 to 40% of "principles."
I guess these articles get web hits, etc., for The Hook, but PLEASE Hook writers, take the time to get the facts and the legal concepts correct. It really is not that hard to produce stories conveying information that is factually and legally correct and which truly advances your readers' knowledge. So come on -- you can surely do better than the above . . . .
For example, the writer says, "As detailed in Love's May 3 suit . . . ," No, the referenced statements are merely allegations by the plaintiffs at this point. They should not be represented by The Hook or anyone else as "the truth," at this stage of the litigation.
Another unchallenged statement in the article was attributed to Chenowith -- "The University does have in loco parentis, and that puts them on the hook." Um, no. The prevailing rule today is that institutions of higher education NO LONGER act in loco parentis to their students. Students, from freshmen through seniors, are considered adults, and universities no longer have special, parental-type duties toward the students. In fact, the first of many hurdles for the plaintiffs in the second suit will be to establish that the Commonwealth/University and the named coaches had a duty to Ms. Love that extended to her private social relationships, off campus and outside school hours. I have not gone back and re-read the pleading, but I don't recall any such allegations in the complaint.
Then the article closes with the following untrue statement -- "the civil cases can't begin until the criminal process is complete." Wrong yet again -- both suits can go forward, and, in fact, time is ticking on the defendants' responsibility to respond to the suits. Those responses will either be "answers" -- point by point responses to the allegations in the complaint, or quite likely in the second case, motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege facts, even if true, that create a legal liability against the defendants. In the case against Huguely, it is likely the plaintiffs want to hold of on deposing him until not only the sentencing is complete, but also after any motions regarding the trial have been decided, because they hope that will preclude GH from taking the fifth. But, actually, he will be able to assert that privilege at least until any appeal of his conviction is decided, an maybe even there after.
There are interesting angles to the suits that The Hook should consider covering if the staff really wants to inform rather than just sensationalize the tragedy:
For example, how about a story on wrongful death law in Virginia? What are the elements and what are considered legitimate damages under Virginia Law? Is there any chance the Loves could net $30 M from these cases? What is joint and several liability? What would the impact be of a large, even if only symbolic, award against Huguely on any possible recovery against the Commonwealth and the coaches? How might that affect the order the plaintiffs will seek to try the cases? Then you could compare how the allegations here and the damages sought measure up. Such a story would inform and provide a more meaningful backdrop for comments than the one above.
How about a more detailed story on Louisa as a venue? Is it likely to hold up? What is the Virginia law on venue?
How about an in-depth profile of the plaintiff lawyers? Rather than looking at websites and gathering an off the cuff comment from your legal analyst, how about a fully researched story. If you do that, be sure and include Bob Hall, the co-counsel from Northern Virginia. I am sure your readers would be interested in his partnership with a grief counsellor, who works with plaintiffs on how best to express their grief to a jury, in order to up the damages awarded.
It is interesting that the Love's chose big-time plaintiff's lawyers to fill second lawsuit. That choice of counsel does belie the contention of some that the suit is about principles, or a desire to affect change in the "university culture." These lawyers don't make a living off of 30 to 40% of "principles."
So sorry for the triple post. There was a bit of a technical glitch. Administrator, please feel free to delete the second and third ones.
I suspect Ms. Love wants vengence, and that might include the satisfaction of forcing Huguely to testify and be cross examined in a civil trial, or just forcing the family to cough up money for legal fees. I don't blame her. If I were in her place, I'd want all that vengence and much, much more.
I will add one Observer -- how about an article on Virginia's now very unusual contributory negligence law, and how it will impact claims like these to the extent they sound in negligence.
According to Mr Purcell's family member he will have nothing to do with this case. You probably could have found that out fairly easily but that fact would not have fit in well with the strory you wanted to write.