Security failure? Morgan Harrington's family refiles complaint

I too applaud the Harrington's and I am truly sorry for their loss but a lawsuit? Keep searching for her killer because he/she or they are out there. You can't expect two different people to do the same thing when it comes to re-entry or looking out for an ex-police officer. If it was the same person then yes, then they are showing bias. There are a lot of things to take into consideration, but filing a law suit is to much.

While I have had some problems wt the Harrington's expectations in accountability based on some of Morgan's actions, I think it is relevant that security had time to help an intoxicated officer that night, but not her. Many security employees are off duty officers themselves, and I can see some real bias here in treatment. They didn't need to let her enter, but they certainly could have called the on duty police to help. Then the worst that would have happened is Morgan ended up in the drunk tank for the night.

Based on some witness accounts she might not have been presenting herself the best, but that's not a reason to not take action.

i am truly sorry for the Harrington's loss. And I compliment them on their cause to prevent this from happening to anyone else. RMCs policy of no re-admittance is firm and standing - its UVa's policy at any event, concert, sporting, etc. and most other colleges I know of. "No re-entry" is clearly printed on every ticket - she was not illiterate. An inebriated police officer likely was sober enough to identify himself by flashing a badge. What has never made sense is why Morgan left in the first place - and why and where was she going to hitch hike to? It's not her fault - not blaming the victim, but there were a series of bad decisions made this tragic night.

"the firm providing concert security helped an intoxicated off-duty Fairfax police officer attending the show to find a safe ride,"

And where was the prior DNA from Sketch found ? Fairfax . Not saying at all that the PO is Sketch, but it doesn't seem plausible he drove down by himself. THAT definitely is a lead I'd follow up on. My eyeballs almost fell out when I read that.

As to the lawsuit. Keep in mind, more is gained from filing a lawsuit than money.

At this point in time, there is no reason to continue to blame the victim for putting herself in harm's way. She paid the ultimate sacrifice for a bad decision. Lots of bead decisions were made that night, to include the friends who left her behind. The issue (if I'm understanding this correctly) on the table is that the Arena was not consistent with decisions. Why should any staff ignore a bleeding woman? The story has so many points that have been presented over the years that this one piece cannot detail it all. However, I say good for the Harrington's for pursuing a lawsuit. Their tenacity to find the truth is hard to match.

Multiple "witnesses" came forward after that night claiming that they offered help to Morgan, and said she refused... guess they will sue those folks next for not forcing their "help" on her.

When this is a young woman you love, will you shrug and write off your loved one's death the way you're willing to write off Morgan's?

Holier than thou, I would neither shrug it off nor try to sue someone not at fault for $3.5M. It's this cash grab that's so distasteful. And the absurd assertions and innuendoes. "She was murdered directly because she was not allowed back in" or "heavy metal at the venue means that bad people are around". Um.....IN the venue, one would suppose. Why, the H's are trying to advocate for sending her back into harm's way!

Stuff and nonsense like that just shows how they are grasping at straws trying to find a scapegoat instead of accepting the sad fact that they lost their daughter through an exceedingly unfortunate series of events that night, in which her own behavior and decisions played a part. I can't wait to hear detailed descriptions of her behavior that day, pre "fall" if there even was one. Oh of course there was, her scrape has turned into a giant gash, spewing blood. Soon the rumor will have it that her chin was missing entirely like Michonne's pets.

Yeah...right...RMC should have called the police on every disruptive, intoxicated patron... ummm... please send more cars Austin TX PD, everyone else East is busy....

Read the lawsuit in its entirety and decide for yourself whether or not the Harringtons--and their attorney--are overreaching as they seek to hold RMC liable in their daughter's death.

The last line is most telling: The plantiffs demand a trial by jury.

Not by a judge, but by a jury...a jury--like all juries--that is easily led and inflamed by emotion.

Again, read the lawsuit.

This case will be settled out of court. Even if it is not, it will not lead to what the Harringtons hope it will lead to: information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for their daughter's death.

What this lawsuit does do, though, is keep the story alive. That may be the Harringtons only hope, slim as it may be.

To Anja Mima. You do not know Gil Harrington or her family & obviously have no compassion for the murder of their child. I do know Gil. She is kind and loving. She shares her nursing skills to those who really have a need, and you do not know about that. She is not "money grubbing". How dare you pass judgment on someone you do not know, and have no idea what she and her family have been through and will be faced with the reality of the senseless murder of their daughter for the rest of their lives. I pity you for your lack of compassion.

The poor girl was murdered and her parents want answers ... answers they will never get. I don't understand how anyone with a heart writes nasty comments.....

Anja, you are the one with twisted logic. Every fact you recite is incorrect.
Genuinely sorry and ashamed to read such ignorant and mean-spirited comments about the brutal murder of a young woman in our town.

There is no way you that any reasonable person would assume that a person denied re-entry to a concert will automatically be murdered. Now, reasonable people DO assume that hitch hikers are taking an unnecessary chance with their safety, which could (and in this case, seems to have) end in murder. Even that's an extreme view -- most hitch hikers aren't assaulted much less murdered, but they certainly increase their chances by putting themselves in the hands of strangers.

But there's no cause and effect that says re-entry denied = murder. That's sheer lunacy. AND...no one really, truly knows when or where or probably even how the poor girl died, which makes it even more ludicrous to say that being denied re-entry led to her murder. She might have gone somewhere and partied for days before it all ended so horribly. Can we even assume she'd be alive today if she'd been allowed to re-enter? No, because unless they arrested her and held her against her will, she might have decided to storm out again with a band-aid on her chin, and ended up in the same circumstance. Why not sue the basketball players for not giving her a ride? You could argue that if they had, she might be alive today. Why not sue her friends for not coming to her rescue? Why not sue Metallica for having a concert that day in that place? IF they hadn't, she'd be alive today. There's no cause and effect between any of those things except that if she hadn't decided to hitch hike -- even though she had other options, like staying put, calling a cab, catching a bus, calling her parents or other friends -- she'd be alive today. That's the truth that's so hard to swallow: her own decisions put her in danger. The bad guy killed her. RMC didn't kill her. Metallica didn't kill her. (Note: pretty lousy to suggest that the concert had violent lyrics that attracted bad guys, after all the help and money Metallica has thrown to the family. Nice.) The concert didn't kill her. Her friends didn't kill her. The people who offered to help her or didn't offer to help her didn't kill her. Her parents are wishing someone could have saved her FROM HERSELF. We wish that, too. That's the whole name of their movement: help save the next girl. Save the next girl from herself.

Exactly, Anja Mima. I think most people see this for what it is, and it may actually be hard to find a jury that will decide against RMC.

I think locals can help if they've ever seen "home porno" videos, or if they've been solicited to buy meth. One thing I've noticed about the rape video ring is that the husbands/males who watch the videos seem to know they're rapes, and the wives/women don't. They're marketed to women by their husbands as "home porno" and not rapes, but they're really rape videos. And so if anyone has penetrated the Charlottesville "market" with "home porno"/rape videos, or with meth, then you need to call the cops and report it. They may be able to trace some of those reports back to the rape video ring and at least get these guys in jail for SOMETHING.

It's possible that the rape video ring gang has gotten off so long because one of the preds from Pennsylvania might be related to a former mayor of Orwigsburg, PA. Also one of the key players from Orwigsburg claims that he used to work as a drug informant for the Pennsylvania State Police, and he also used to haul classified cargo for the US government. Although neither are currently (too old) with the Army Reserves at Fort Indiantown Gap/Special Operations as the bounty hunter there thinks, and so they aren't the main suspects. They weren't the ones seen in the car of the suspect in Virginia later that night. But they may be a reason that the gang has gotten away with it so long -- they have someone in Pennsylvania with some sway who lies for them... But then again, cops in Pennsylvania (the state police there), NY's special victims unit, even the Stafford, VA deputies all had chances to take these guys down, and they didn't. So whoever's pulling strings for them manages to sway too many cops to disregard their victims. They also have a couple of accomplices from California that I know of, possibly linked to organized crime in Las Vegas, and I think that's where the snotty comments from California on Topix are coming from. They don't burn their home district, though -- you won't see remarks degrading the victims from New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania. That's their home turf, it'd be a giveaway.

There is plenty of blame to go around, though. Not just with the arena. Even people who buy meth or who watch rape videos contributed in a small way to Morgan Harrington's murder by supporting and sustaining the predators responsible. Morgan Harrington was pretty and had parents who kept putting it out there, and a famous band who got involved -- the other girls, however pretty, didn't get the media support, and so past failure after neglect after failure to lock that ring away, from both witnesses and police, are most culpable for the murder of Morgan Harrington. That and the failure by numerous states to do rape kits and recover DNA in a timely fashion. And don't let NYPD lie to you -- they don't process their rape kits right away. If they're too lazy to do anything, they just never pick the rape kit up. Failing to report crimes is how Giuliani got the crime rate down, and that's a fact. One of the key players in the rape ring has been a known stalker since the year 1993 at least, heavily in New York state. That's plenty of time to lock him away, but nobody ever gave a hoot enough to do it. That's how serial killers get away with it for so long, and people need to get motivated to catch people like that at the start of their criminal careers, not at the end when they're famous for being big killer sleazeballs.

Bill,

I am inclined to agree with what you say. But it does raise even more questions as to why the police were not called over in this case. I am not really blaming the event location, but I am saying that drunken erratic behavior is an expected thing, and police officers are first and foremeost..peace officers. It isn't just an intoxicated lady getting kidnapped and murdered, it's an intoxicated lady or man getting behind the wheel of a car, it's the parking lot knifing. It's all the costs that society has to pay for in these events.

For RMC to be legally liable it would have to owe a duty to Morgan, it would have had to have breached that duty, and the breach must have been then proximate cause of her death. The first 31 paragraphs of the complaint go into great detail about how RMC had a duty to Morgan and how it breached that duty. But then, a single paragraph, number 32, says "As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." RMC should have filed a demurrer - a legal pleading that says that a complaint that simply states conclusions without facts should be dismissed. Simply saying RMC not lettting her back in led directly to her her abduction and death is just a conclusion. There simply have to be "facts" alleged. Because no one actually knows what exactly happened to Morgan (was she abducted in the parking lot? somewhere else? how was she killed? did she drink or take drugs after leaving JPJ? etc.) it is simply impossible for the lawyer to actually allege the "facts" - no one knows those facts. For that reason, the complaint should be dismissed.

Some might say "but facts might be uncovered in the lawsuit that could show RMC is responsible". That may be true, but lawsuits aren't supposed to be filed until the facts are known. Imagine, for instance, that you were at a park, and someone else at the park at the same time you were died later that day. Should a lawyer be permitted to sue everyone who was at the park in the hope that facts might be uncovered in the lawsuits that would reveal what caused the person's death? The legal answer is no - the plaintiff has to have enough facts at the beginning to be able to say honestly that the breach of duty led directly to the death. In the complaint here, there is not a single "fact" that shows RMC's actions led directly to Morgan's death.

These legal points won't matter, however, unless RMC files that demurrer - which is decided by a judge. If RMC doesn't challenge this lack of facts now, then the case will likely be headed to a jury. Most juries don't understand the intricate legal details. It is entirely possible that a jury will think a) RMC wasn't very nice and they probably should have let Morgan back in, b) that wasn't nice or it was inconsistent for RMC to let other folks back in, c) it is horrible that Morgan died, and d) RMC probably has a lot of money and the money could go to good use. As a legal matter, though, that would be a terrible outcome.

The outcome would mean that every establishment would be faced with liability if something happened to the patron after he/she left the establishment. Imagine, for instance, that a patron of ACAC hurt his/her arm. The patron then leaves ACAC, gets into his/her car and later that day crashes and dies. Should ACAC be liable for failing to treat the patron's arm? for failing to stop the patron from driving? for failing to prohibit the patron from leaving ACAC's premises?

Unless RMC's actions were the direct cause of Morgan's death, then, as a legal matter RMC should not be liable.

With respect to Dan Friedman, not all issues go to a jury. Instead, if asked, the judge makes an initial call as to whether there were "facts" alleged indicating all of the necessary elements of the case. If the law was so broad as to allow folks to sue everyone who "might" be responsible, and then let a jury decide who pays what, then Morgan's family should sue every other concert goer, everyone in the parking lot, everyone who drove by, the band, the band's crew, UVA, and anyone else and then let the jury decide which of all of them should be responsible. I hope that is not the system we have.

On NBC29's Facebook page, in response to an article about the family of the lady killed crossing Putt Putt Ct by a driver who had a stop sign and was turning right onto Rio, there were tons of "money grab" comments. This guy was careless and a woman died as a direct result of his carelessness.

It is hard to square the above with all the "have a heart" comments here by people who think RMC effectively abducted and murdered Morgan by having the same "no re-entry" policy every venue nationwide.

I hope Morgan's killer is caught soon, and then the Harrington family can sue him (or her, or them). They are directly responsible, not RMC. I sympathize with the family but this tragedy has driven them off the deep end. Getting $3.5M from RMC's insurer will not "save the next girl."

...to LegalEagle to spelling out clearly how RMC should not be held liable for whatever later occurred to Morgan Harrington.

You should reach out to counsel representing RMC because you are correct: absent a judge deciding for RMC in a demurrer, a jury can too easily be swayed into believing that RMC was at fault. (Frankly, a jury can be swayed into believing most anything, especially when a young woman's life has been cruelly cut short as was Morgan's.)

One other point of note: The witness indicates that she detected no odor of alcohol when she is alleged to have encountered Morgan in the restroom. Any (honest) 20-something concert-goer will tell you a large percentage of younger attendees are not under the influence of alcohol (after all, they cannot legally purchase it inside the venue) but of recreational pharmaceuticals, including but not limited to ecstasy. A drug like ecstasy (think unicorns) will induce a variety of symptoms to include confusion, muscle cramps, blurry vision, lack of awareness of pain--among others. Such disorientation could easily lead to a fall of sorts...or a concert-goer inadvertently ending up somewhere other than their earlier seat at the concert.

This is not to say that Morgan was under the influence of ecstasy or other drugs. It is, however, to say that simply because there was reportedly no odor of alcohol on her person does not mean that there were no other factors at play that evening.

Legal Eagle is right.
The dozens of times that Gil and Dan stated publicly that a C' ville man is responsible will come into the trial. Many other statements that Gil PUBLISHED directly state that she was hunted! The Attorneys for the security company are in a hard place. The PR firm for the Harrington's will play it up as a a poor victim's family vs a Goliath.

The serious problems are that Gil and Dan's own words tear down this statement :"As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered."

Their very own words conclude that a C'ville man murdered her. Now, is the jury to just disregard the 200 times the parents and PR firm have floated other theories? Then take this one seriously.

Are we to believe that this C' ville man pushed her down in the concert area, knowing no one would try to help her. Then leave, watch her, track her. Get her into his car, then hunt her as in a game, assassinate her like the Kennedy's!

Well if any of the hundreds of theories offered by Dan and Gil are even remotely true, then the security company could never have kept her from harm's way.

They better watch it, discovery is a two way street and there is a lot of money and promises floating around.

They need to move to the next phase of grieving and for the first time take responsibility for the 19 years that they had to raise her.

They cannot have it both ways, if they refer to her as a shinny girl, then they MUST take responsibility.

She was an adult, yes a very challenged adult! Address that in court!

@ ed March 27th, 2013 | 5:23pm

Very well stated! Every word!

This statement strikes right into the very public display of so called Health Proffessionals just melting down as Parents. Everything they know, every detail of their profession tells them to accept responsibility and they know their daughter would not want this to be dragged out. Yet, they themselves are giving in to the Evil of denial.

"Acting as though we have no personal responsibility and that some big brother will always watch out for us is counterproductive and is the type of attitude that, if taught to your kid, may make it more likely that the kid will act like Morgan did here."

To see how they act, must give us insight to mind of Morgan Dana Harrington. Her frame of mind is in question and certainly fair game. With parents behaving like this after 3 years it offers much more the reason of why Morgan put herself in harms way. It was in her DNA, not due to a Security Company and Dan and Gil know it!

This is a sad situation and it only tarnishes Morgan Dana Harrington!

Good thing he and she are not Captains of a ship, because they will do anything to keep the world from seeing their own faults. It is sad, and I pity them!

Their denial is eating at them every single day, in public!

D,

I seriously doubt the no re-entry policy has anything to do with admission abuse, but to prevent people leaving the venue to get alcohol and come back in. Sure, they want to make a buck, but its a bit more than that. I don't really have that much of a problem with the policy given the amount of alcohol abuse that goes on at these types of events.

Perhaps what is more relevant is how we as a society begin to address the kinds of behavior and danger to society that these events bring together. They are magnets for drugs, alcohol, and plain bad people.Not everyone does it, but the % is far higher. It isn't just about protecting young ladies like Morgan Harrington from a series of poor decisions - it's about protecting the outside world from what goes on within. Yes, rapists will be at he edges of a parking lot in hopes of bagging a Morgan Harrington. Or any other female who happens to be in the vicinity. Its about the victims of the drunk drivers. Its about the neighbors who can't sleep but have to work in the early AM.

RMC did file a demurrer, well -- for the original suit. I assumed this amended suit was filed as a result of that, but maybe not? So doe RMC have to file yet another dermurrer?

Since the Harringtons have always been so public about how everyone but Morgan should be held accountable for her behavior that night, it has cost them the pity they so desperately crave. Except for the folks at their own Facebook page and website. Those are the only koolaid drinkers left. And people like George, above, who have for whatever reason, a need to see UVa blamed for this. It's has gone on too long. I think Sutton is right that maybe it was the Harringtons themselves who taught Morgan that she never had to be accountable for her own behavior, because there are always others to blame.

The amended complaint almost certainly was the result of the demurrer to the original complaint. A demurrer asserts that the complaint does not set forth sufficient "facts" to state a legal action. If the judge sustains the demurrer (agrees that there are not sufficient facts), the judge often grants "leave to amend". This simply means that the plaintiff gets to file an amended complaint adding more facts. The new complaint does add a ton of new details regarding "duty and breach". In fact, the first 31 paragraphs are entirely about duty and breach.

As I mentioned above, for the plaintiff to state a legal cause of action, the complaint must state "facts" that show RMC 1) owed a duty to Morgan, 2) RMC breached that duty, and 3) that breach of duty was the proximate cause of Morgan's death. The amended complaint alleges all sorts of new facts regardin 1 and 2. That is, the amended complaint says that RMC knew that concerts were dangerous places, and that Morgan had a cut on her face, and that RMC didn't do anything to help her, etc. What the amended complaint does not do, and I believe it cannot do, is to state "facts" in support of number 3.

The only thing the complaint says in support of number 3 is paragraph 32 - "As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." Those aren't facts. That's merely a guess. Because no one knows when, where or how Morgan was killed, it is impossible for the plaintiff to do anything else but make a guess. And a guess isn't enough to file a lawsuit.

If Morgan had died in the parking lot as a result of a gang of thugs that frequented these concerts, then the complaint could allege facts - it would say "as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide adequate security and address the known gang problem, Morgan Harrington was assaulted and killed." Those would be "facts" showing that the breach led to Morgan's death.

As I mentioned above, if this trial proceeds, maybe facts will be discovered that will reveal that Morgan was abducted in the parking lot. But, at this stage, those facts simply aren't known. Trials are not supposed to be used for investigation, and so if facts are discovered that would not justify the filing of a complaint without facts to support it. Our system doesn't support plaintiffs or the state simply hauling everyone to court and letting the jury figure things out. Juries are not investigatory bodies. Imagine if everytime there was a robbery in a certain neighborhood everyone in the neighborhood was rounded up and charged and we asked the jury to "sort things out". Imagine if everytime there was a car wreck, everyone within 1 mile was sued and we asked the jury to "sort things out". That would be an incredibly invasive, expensive, and unjust way of handling things. Instead, our system demands that before a charge can be brought, or before a lawsuit can be filed, the accuser must have "facts" that indicate the defendant was responsible. Because no one knows exactly what happened to Morgan, it is impossible to say that RMC's policies had anything at all to do with her death. For that reason, RMC should file a demurrer and the court should sustain that demurrer.

Legal, this trial is going to proceed, make no mistake, and it will go to jury. As George points out, UVA brought down the curtain on events from day one (for example, the management company at JPJ never made a public statement and never released video coverage) and the debate about Morgan's murder continues to rage unabated.
I'll make a suggestion for Mr. Livingston, which I am sure he does not need: jury selection will be critical. Any parents of teenage girls have walked in Mr and Mrs Harrington's shoes. They will award the family $39 million, not just $3.9m.

Edited from LegalEagle (certain quotation marks and caps mine):

"...for the plaintiff to state a legal cause of action, the complaint must state "FACTS" that show RMC 1) owed a duty to Morgan, 2) RMC breached that duty, and 3) that breach of duty was the proximate CAUSE of Morgan's death. The amended complaint ALLEGES all sorts of new "facts" regarding 1 and 2. That is, the amended complaint says that RMC knew that concerts were dangerous places, and that Morgan had a cut on her face, and that RMC didn't do anything to help her, etc. What the amended complaint does NOT do, and I believe it CANNOT do, is to state "facts" in support of number 3.

The only thing the complaint says in support of number 3 is paragraph 32--"As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." THOSE AREN'T FACTS. That's merely a guess. Because NO ONE knows WHEN, WHERE or HOW Morgan was killed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plaintiff to do anything else but make a GUESS. And a GUESS isn't enough to file a lawsuit.

If Morgan had died in the parking lot as a result of a gang of thugs that frequented these concerts, then the complaint could allege facts - it would say "as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide adequate security and address the known gang problem, Morgan Harrington was assaulted and killed." Those would be "facts" showing that the breach led to Morgan's death.

Because NO ONE knows exactly WHAT happened to Morgan, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that RMC's policies had ANYTHING at all to do with her death. For that reason, RMC should file a demurrer and the court should sustain that demurrer."

The judge sustained the original demurrer, indicating that there were not sufficient FACTS to state a legal action. Even with the grant of leave to amend, the amended complaint does not include FACTS in support of their statement that RMC's alleged breach of duty was the proximate CAUSE of Morgan's death.

Rinse and repeat.

Legal,
A caused B.
An injured girl was not re-admitted to venue because of rules. Girl ended up dead.
What more do you want?
Venue had a duty, to be sure. Venue, in fact, a year or so later, aknowledging duty, beefed up security inside and outside venue.
Be honest: RMC did a lousy job running JPJ for UVA.
This will be the mother of all lawsuits.

LegalEagle, I think you need to hit the books some more. I was involved with a manufacturer who was sued in the crash of the TWA 747 off of long island. My company only made the igniters that allowed the engines to be started. We were dropped out of the lawsuit in time but the initial list of defendants was longer than your arm.

I was also involved in the largest product liability ever awarded in North Carolina - 46 million dollars. In my opinion the Harringtons have the most backboard-shattering slam dunk I have ever seen.

George, because the Morgan Harrington case is being heard in a Virginia state court, the law of New York, North Carolina, nor other states comes into play. With regard to various defendants being dropped out of the lawsuit you were involved in, my guess is that in each case the judge determined that there was no valid claim. In other words, the case, as against your company, never made it to a jury.

Legal eagle,

Point of clarity. The 46 million dollars was an out of court settlement prior to trial, it was not an award by a jury.

@Dan Friedman, Morgan was neither underage (except for drinking alcohol, which she managed to do anyhow), nor in need of life-saving first aid. She became a murder victim when she made the unfortunate decision to hitch hike.

A caused B.
A girl was given concert tickets by her parents and permitted to drink. Girl ended up dead.
What more do you want? Parents must be to blame.

A jury can award the family $399 million if they want. They'll never see a dime because Morgan's contributory negligence will erase any such award.

Something else odd, the Harringtons have started their own non profit: why not work with existing organizations that have programs that teach and promote safety for young women?
I hate to say it but how many non profits have been started in the last 20 or so years that duplicate existing long term organizations and turn out to be disasters?

So now we are supposed to let employees of various establishments determine whether or not they should detain us- yes, restrict our liberties pursuant to the fourth amendment- because they THINK we cannot take care of ourselves. Wow, looking forward to the false imprisonment lawsuits to follow. Along with assault and battery, etc... I feel for the Harringtons but enough is enough.

Caesonia,

thanks for your comment. At the UVa-sanctioned concert there were UVa police, Charlottesville city police, Virginia State Police all on duty as well as a staffed first aid room with trained medical personnel. You have an impaired youth that only wants to get back inside to see the show she purchased tickets for. Tickets that paid for the band as well as the police and medical personnel that should have evaluated her medical condition.

Put it another way. You are having a backyard party to raise money for a charity. A kid in the neighborhood pays his dollar and is having a good time. He falls and cracks his head on the pool edge and starts acting strangely. He wanders out of your backyard and tries to get back in but you won't let him. The kid then stumbles into the street and is hit by a truck. You have no responsibility? Are you seriously suggesting that? Now further assume you have paid the local neighborhood doctor and policeman for first-aid and security and you did not have either of them evaluate the kid before turning him away.

If he is wasted and you have a policeman in the yard he gets busted, no?

What the parents should be saying is, "man I sure wish she had stuck with her friends and not walked away from the arena. She'd be alive today." Hitchhiking is always a bad idea, how was anyone to know that's what she'd do?

The thoughts on liability of venue for events happening right around the time that a patron leaves or is prevented from leaving are very important. If a patron is seriously injured and is denied reentry and dies from those injuries, maybe a venue would have liability. If a patron is rowdy and throwing punches and is allowed to come back into the venue and the patron then hurts someone, the venue maybe the venue would have liability. In Morgan's case, though, because we don't know when, how, or where she was abducted and murdered, we can't tie the denial of reentry to her abduction and murder. As I mentioned in a previouis post, if RMC knew that there were abducters in the parking lot at the time they refused Morgan reentry, and Morgan was then abducted in the parking lot, there might be liability here.

Do we want a system where a venue is held liable for every bad thing that happens to a patron who "might" be hurt later? Well then, venues should take car keys, they should lock the doors until everyone goes through a medical check, they should deny exit to those with any physical disabilities, they should deny exit to anyone with any mental disease, etc. I go back to my ACAC example. When a person injured his/her arm, if ACAC knew they would be liable for any car wreck later that day, they wouldn't let the person leave. They would take the person's car keys. If you think that venues won't want to face the public relations nightmare of denying exit to people, then the other result of a policy of strict liability would be soaring ticket prices, fewer events, and higher insurance rates.

I'll say it again, if Morgan was abducted in the parking lot, and if RMC knew that there was a risk of abductions, they would likely be liable. But, those aren't the facts here. We don't know when, where or how Morgan was abducted or killed. We cannot tie A to B.

@Dan Friedman:

You are encouraged to pay closer attention to LegalEagle, who knows from whence (legal perspective) he speaks, i.e.,

A. if Morgan was abducted in the parking lot; and
B. if RMC knew that there was a risk of abductions; then
C. they would likely be liable.

But, those aren't the facts here.

We do not know:
1. when; and/or
2. where; and/or
3. how Morgan was abducted or killed.

As they say, you cannot get there from here.

On that basis I would suggest that your earlier assertions above that this trial will proceed and that a jury will award the family (the exaggerated) $39M are incorrect.

I do not believe that this trial will proceed, rendering everything else moot.

@caesonia
It's your wish to make up a fictitious name for yourself, and that's fine, but I have never posted anonymously

@legal
As they say, see you in court

If Morgan had been allowed back in the best result would be she saw a band she had paid to see. In the worst outcome she would have been arrested for public intoxication and been placed safely in custody. The police of whatever stripe had the authority to investigate her unusual behavior did they not? Was that not what they were there for? There is no trampling on her civil rights here at all. How could she be a threat to anyone if she was inside the building with police and medical people around?

What m sutton said, +100!

The Harrimgton’s say that Metal bands being booked ought to a signal to JPJA about the elements associated with them.

Well, the father brought the tickets, Their jobs and volunteer work intertwines with UVA and the whole institutional set up of hospitals and Universities. The mother helped her pick out the cloths, it is not as if their non-adult daughter told them she was going to a sleep over at a convent and then secretly went off to the BIG BAD EVIL HEAVY METAL BAND!

Both knew there was a designated driver. What they didn't know was that they were taking Morgan's car. Right there is one of the first of the of many lies to the parents, if we are to believe them.

Ironic after Metallica has been such a help, that the she allowed those words to be printed.

They just do not live in reality and it is apparent their daughter did not either. So if they were the so called parents of a shinny girl, have multiple degrees and are so darn smart, then why did he buy the tickets and parking pass. There is your liability right there.BUT, wait, she was 20, in the eyes of the law she could enroll in Armed Services, enter into contracts and balance a check book?

I would like for Legal Eagle to explain as best he can about the Virginia Civil court. Maybe explain the number of jurors, the need for a majority, 2/3rd or unanimous decision.

Also, is the monetary part considered in a different phase, does the judge have powers to limit or change an amount rewarded and explain a little more with an actual case [in Virginia] as to the plaintiff's contributory negligence rule as specific to Virginia Courts.

Her friends show that they are the very best friends. She did not have the keys to get into her car and run-over or kill many in a drunk driving accident. Good friends do not allow friends to drive drunk!

The friends are fantastic and they were doing the best thing friends can do! Not talking about their dead friend who they love. They do support many of the events that the Harrington's have done. They do attend, they always have pictures on their pages of a bright and very close to them Morgan.

I believe Gil just opened the door to all medical issues.

I think Gil is going to be very very very sorry that she has stated the things she has about Metallica and that she is deepening the lack of anyone coming forward.

What Anja Mima will say +101!

Honestly, I don't care if she was drinking at age 20, but m-sutton is right -- the drinking + use of cold medicine or other over the counter/not so over the counter drugs probably precipitated her fall. She fell because she was already out of it; she wasn't out of it because of the fall. The friends can undoubtedly attest to what she drank and/or took that night, how she was acting before she took off, and her habits, and all of that should come into play at the trial.

I wish she had thought to call her parents, who doted on her and would have counseled her on what to do (wait in the library, hang near the entrance and listen to the show for an hour, etc.) or rushed to her rescue. Must be a reason she decided not to reach out to them.

Caesonia March 30th, 2013 | 5:05pm

Sadly your posting here may get you in trouble and cause problems if you do not answer the questions correctly when preforming your duty to report as a juror.

Doesn't take a legal eagle to answer that. There are many jury findings in criminal cases and a few in civil cases that caused dismissals and overturning of findings and even jury tampering charges.

Why waste your time with Dan and/or George? They are just getting you to play their game and distract you from focusing on the case in the article.

At George! Morgan was threat to everyone one the streets if her friends did not keep her from driving!

Caesonia
You said it best: "This attempt to somehow place a degree of for-knowledge and expertise on the hands of the public and the gate personnel is what is turning people off on the Harringtons, and off of folks like you".

Yes it is the beginning of the unraveling and even opens the door to lawsuits against the Harringtons.

A friend sent me a message from mom3. That's about all I know, is that she is about done with the Harrington's constant music bashing. She is the only one with a brain over there. I know exactly who kickee is and so does Ms. Stuart.

Ms Stuart broke the news and Blink till this day claims credit, but she not did interview him. The Hook did, and what in the heck does he have to do with the lawsuit and her not getting back in. She was using him for cover to act as if she was escorted.
They don't want him he is not going to help their case at all!

Nothing to do with entry! The woman did not want to be seen by cameras or anyone involved with police. That's her whole MO for her cup of tea!

Does anyone believe anything from BLINK? Really?

haha, B thinks that Morgan was trying to get kickee to suture the (now, suddenly) enormous gash in her chin. She's out of her mind.

matityahu, interesting solution. No way of knowing if she would have stormed out of that, too, though, and the Harringtons would still insist it was because of an (unproven) concussion and that RMC should have known that, and would still be to blame.

Hadn't thought about them taking the stand. That should prove very enlightening at the hands of a skilled attorney. When do depositions begin?

I have a couple of ideas:

UVa, under a spirit of reconcilation, refunds Dan Harrington the cost of Morgan's concert ticket and they call it even.

The Virginia State Police continues to sit on the evidence and continues to pretend they are working the case.

The local connected dope dealer, who in all likelyhood gave Morgan a fatal overdose after she called him to pick her up, can keep on dealing.

Go Hoos! When is the next rock concert on campus, er,... "grounds"? I want to send my neice.

George, only problem is that she didn't make any phone calls except for calling her friends inside the arena.

George, I do recall that. We never did hear if that panned out. I'm guessing not.

George March 31st, 2013 | 12:59pm

There is a fact and some investigating details that have not been release and I can tell you to do a few things.

Now depending on your age and use of modern technology, how many numbers do you remember in your head? Just try it, no looking into an organizer, no pieces of paper in your wallet.

She did have contact with another person during the time between showing up in the lot and midnight a least one time, and for very good reasons it is believed another attempt

It is very clear she was not trying to call Mom and Dad.

So who was she trying to call? It has not been released who she called [not the call between the friends inside], but a few other than just I question the dismissal of this person as being possibly involved. I only state that you will also remember Ms Geller also changed positions on record as to the verifiable likelihood that Morgan was seen way into the next morning.

If that is the case ,and it was printed [a very strange thing due to the information VSP does release] the original time line used to evaluate who should be ruled out changes.

I do know of two very good reasons that the time line changes. I can only tell you that a tip with specific information not even dreamed of at the time - came in with other specific details. This I know for an absolute fact!

I am only doing what VSP did here. Open your eyes and allow for tips and information that were dismissed to be looked at again. One other thing there was nothing indicating any security or LE involvement. The type of jobs that these men appeared to have are known to LE [FBI and Rader himself] and it had nothing to do with a music concert.

Read Rader's letter and then think of the twisted logic of this legal case in the subject.

If they were to arrest and charge the last persons with her, they could now say that the elements associated with Metal Rock bands and the elements themselves are responsible, not the last one with her.

This case is just nuts, medical Doctor allows the premises that Metal Music is the reason for her death, built upon a fall, and no reentry? Really was there a banana peel on the floor?

Anji:

There are 4 women that I respect so much in regards to this case.

1] is Amanda, she is unwavering in her support, but also very intelligent and just so kind.
2] Is mom 3, her research and love for what I think Morgan loved are so important.
3] is Dunnah, she is no friend of mine, that she makes clear. But she has the local perspective and she is so consistent and intelligent it brings clarity to any of us. Her heart, mind and soul is not to be questioned.
4] then there is Ms Stuart, during Hawes and after - she is a source that is truly the only one that can bring past Virginia and local cases into the light. Folks, she is no fan of me either.

The point is, that many people are not bound by emotions, the rush to judgement, the - just plain darn assignation of character as displayed by so many in this case.

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

I too sometimes get to emotional and I will explain it now!

A woman posted on Find Morgan that I was accused of murder of my Uncle. My Uncle was my Fathers closes brother out out of 10. Hawes was aware my father passed away last year, and that I had a true hate for the way Dan Harrington reacted it to it. It was so horrible, that anyone with a cold case would just puke!

What Dan Harrington did was not only bad, but when it was reported that I had had committed suicide and that information got to my Mother he told me I deserved it! He is a very mean, out of touch man!

Of course it was another gentleman and Dan let his moderators on Findmorgan fend for themselves.The only law suite ever mentioned prior, and i mean many months before i was even involved was from a mentally ill person.

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

I not only spent time, money and involved several experts, I got involved with the most fantastic friend.

The result was so a war on me by he!

And, I am telling you it does have baring on this case!

The frustration of VSP was so important that they actually asked me if I had ever seen such. It lead to many contacts with a fine man, sometimes by phone, rarely by e-mail and sometimes with his team coming into my home in the Hills. Do not worry, there were no airline tickets, no lavish hotel or even expenses tax payer dollars ever spent.

I volunteered it all.

I got a tip, it was so early. DNA test had not even been forwarded to the lab. Lt. Rader is a very very fine man. It became apparent the tip I received included the facts that the person with the tip had tried unsuccessfully to give the information. The Lt. looked into and found in-fact the person was accurate that the tips were not even looked at by a true investigator.

The information later proved to be 100% accurate, or shall we say %99.9999999999999999999986.

The other information at the same time just did not fit anyone's timeline.But mine at the time!

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

The Harringtons not only treated me this way, I have a list of 7 other people that also have either a cold case or a more recent case. This case touched all of us, especially families with unanswered questions to their families losses, never before had many of us felt so used and abused by any two people.

It became apparent to many of us, and many have had professional counseling that these parents were either now, or have had been due to other experiences not going to grieve in anyway that he have ever experienced

I truly want the truth to be told, I believe that Morgan had the talent, desires and the calling to move into the art world. I do not believe in anyway she is to be blamed for her pursuit of living the way she wanted.

I just think that the Harringtons would have gotten or would get much more support if they just acknowledged her free spirit, instead of being ashamed of her actions. She was young, not a girl, she had talent, she was not a bad young lady. She lived to experience life, look at her bedroom, she had a wide array of musical interest.

She did choose to have good friends. They loved her so much. She struggled with life as 98 % will admit too later looking back at their late teens and early 20's. It just seems so sad, to see two people just melt!

RMC cannot make then whole, no one can but a higher power. 2 and one half years ago I printed on The Hook that maybe by the 4th of July 2012 they could foe a cruse or go to the beach and gaze back with a new look into Morgan's life and celebrate all of it, even the desire to go see art performed at JPJA. But we are soon to be a year late, sadly and it is sad, they have no peace in their heart.

In the spirit of Easter, I hope that they find peace. Peace is not found in revenge, nor indifference.

I ahve spoken to many people close to them out of concern before our falling out. I am not nor ever will be a "YES MAN". I applaud those that give them comfort, but question at what point do they tell them to move forward. Morgan would surely want them to.

They need not worry about the level of police and FBI's desire to let this case solve.
Trust God, these people involved in the case are very professional, they are not incompetent nor without resources.

I spoke to Rader so many times, funny now looking back how he made a point when talking about the mental ill person. His point was that Civil law-suites were just something he could not stand. He explained it was different rules, no consensus only a majority of jurors. Back then I thought he was speaking of the poster on Findmorgan.com.

Now, well my Dad was a great Attorney in both criminal and civil suites, but I see just how wise Ret. Lt. Rader is!

I want the truth, no matter what is, lessons can be learned. That is what we need, the truth!

I doubt that RMC is responsible for Morgan Dana Harrington's death. In fact I know they are not!

I forgive Dan almost every Sunday. Strange with all I have going on, the family was in my Easter prayers. I am not evil, Music is not evil, Dan is not evil but life is not fair. Be happy for her life Dan, even it was too brief, I say to the Harrington's Mary at first saw her SON Jesus have his life taken from him and her.

Truly to have a child lose their life preceding the mother and father is one of the worst things any person can endure.

Just remember and believe, Jesus and Mary do understand, you are not alone. May peace please find its way into your hearts!

I will continue to find the truth!

Oh, and here's something else that someone might remember -- when the black man came into the truck stop, he was wearing a plain blue uniform, basically a blue shirt and dark pants. No company logo, or I would have complained to that company about him. He did have a red and white name patch on it, though. (Keep in mind that his tags were from New Jersey -- so if he was working in the area, which I doubt, he was an out of state worker.)

Who might have been wearing a uniform like that in or around the concert? I wasn't there. You'll have to be the memory for me. Remember, I was staying near the North Carolina border and the only reason I was at the truck stop so long was that the Wifi at my hotel wasn't working. (I actually suspect that God put me there because I'd recognize the interstate stalking /serial rape suspect in the back seat.)

And then while he was there, the man took FOREVER in the men's room changing his clothes, Like, longer than a woman doing her make-up. He came out in dress pants and a nice shirt, I think tan pants and a cream-colored shirt with tan and even dark purple stripes at varied intervals. The new clothes looked brand new, and he wouldn't have been that bad-looking man if it weren't for his violent and disgusting personality.

Sutton by far, not even close.

Things like porn videos and meth aren't big here, are they? It sounds like Morgan was X-ing from her behavior, and from the way the friends were pissed at her and let her go. But it's a stretch to think she was kidnapped by a porn video guy. Dunno. This has been one big nutty story. It will probably all turn out to be something pretty simple, and the guy she went off with (or who took her) will turn out to be a big nobody. No conspiracies. Morgan will be remembered as the pretty college girl who got hammered and left her friends, walked off from the arena, hitchhiked with the wrong guy, and ended up dead. A scary lesson for all our children.

I'm sure that most of the posts by people "blaming the victim" are from the predators themselves. Everyone else might want to get off the monetary damages kick and worry about ridding the community of these predators.

For those of you who seem to read nothing BUT the Hook, I'll cover the theories I referred to FOR you. (For all the Morgan Harrington fans here, I thought you already knew.) You can google it if you want, and see the picture board of victims for yourselves.

Fact is, the P.I. from Sarasota has been on CNN with his theory, and he's put together a photo board of the women abducted who he thinks were all abducted by the same person(s). They look similar, and if he's right, the guy went on a spree in 2011 for an unknown reason. The only woman in that group of abductees who was ever found was Morgan Harrington, so she's all that the FBI has to go on if they believe the serial killer angle, which personally I think they've started to do, based on some things I've seen going on lately. Also based on things I won't cover here, I'm pretty sure they know the identity of everyone in that car, even the two men in the back seat who I didn't recognize.

The other theory I mentioned was from a bounty hunter in Pennsylvania who says that he recognized the suspect in the sketch, and that he's a member of an Army Reserves unit based in Fort Indiantown Gap that trains in Charlottesville, and near most of the other women on the "disappeared" list circulated by the Florida P.I.

I was one of the eye witnesses to the men on the North Carolina border -- which of course brings up the question of where they dump the bodies. If they were going in that direction and the hidden person wasn't moving at all had already passed, is it in North Carolina? Were they originally going to put the body in North Carolina? I think the sighting the following week was because they moved the remains after the story hit the TV. Suddenly they realized that she was "too hot to handle," and they couldn't leave her in their normal area. Also they were on a main road that goes to Fort Bragg, another place mentioned as a training site for the same Army unit. Were they going to one of their friends' houses near there? Or do they know of a special place on base that nobody would ever check?

I already knew about the rape video ring because I've lived in the Reading-Harrisburg area of Pennsylvania. In fact I'd already mentioned that ring to the VSP and FBI because I knew that the man I saw on the night of Harrington's abduction was a key member, if not the ringleader, and he's an established sexual predator with a long history. He's exactly the type of person who would eventually become a serial killer, and become violent enough to fracture bones as was seen by the Harringtons when their daughter's bones were returned to them. I just didn't know he was killing girls until I found out the significance of his appearance in Virginia that night. I knew he was dangerous, but didn't have previous evidence that he was involved in murders, at least not until 2009.

The bounty hunter in PA was the one who linked the disappearance of all of those women to the Fort Indiantown Gap area in PA. That was his idea, not mine, and it fits with what I already know AND saw on the very night of the Harrington abduction, and with what the Sarasota P.I. has researched and posted about the serial killer case.

For those who think it's GOOD to have a serial killer trolling your area and abducting your women, keep posting junk on how it's all the victims' fault. For the decent people in your area, maybe you should be talking to your friends and cousins in North Carolina and south of Charlottesville, to see if they know where the girls may have been taken. I'm sure somebody knows someone who's seen something, whether they realize the significance of what they've seen yet or not.

For those who were at the concert, I'll give you more of a clothing description than the black man in the plain blue uniform. The large bald-shaved tan man who was pumping gas for him had a flashy white sweatshirt with silver line art on it. Did anyone see someone like that with a woman who looked like Morgan Harrington? Maybe you should call the police if you did.

That's the thing about keeping quiet -- there are pros and cons. On one hand, I can understand that the police don't want one witness' story influencing the next witness. People might make assumptions and skew their stories toward the norm, and miss important details that could provide key information. On the other hand, if you don't give people a taste of important details, they don't know how significant something they saw might have been. They may think that because they didn't see Morgan Harrington, that they don't have anything useful to offer. But if they know enough about what other people saw, they might be able to give another location on the same car, or an ID on one of the persons, or even a possible locaiton that police can check for other victims. They may already be suspicious of a local predator, and when they realize who they saw him with back in 2009... magic could happen.

I think the case has gone unsolved for too long -- and so I'm OK with putting some details that I know out there. The police and FBI haven't told me to keep quiet and so I can do that for you. It might help someone realize that what they saw was key information. Maybe it'll even lead to the other girls, I hope. Again, check your e-mail outbox for mid-October 2009. Even the week following the abduction, they may have circled back to dump the body in the farmer's field. You could have seen something important, like the guy with the trash bags or something even more incriminating.

Hooray! Hearing scheduled for April 18. This should be good. I hope the Hook will cover it and publish the transcripts.

"Everyone else might want to get off the monetary damages kick and worry about ridding the community of these predators.

Sounds like good advice for some of the indivudals here spouting conspiracy theories and trying to rewrite history.

Frank -- some boots are made for walking.

"Had they not negligently admitted her while wearing CM FM Boots this tragedy would not have happened."

Seriously? Nah, can't be serious. Almost had me, though.

Good point Bobby . Regardless of what the SWM --- SlutWalk Movement might feel , banning the unsafe CM FM Boots within JPJ would have prevented the fall and subsequent concussion . People don't usually fall from a sitting position so she would have fallen while attempting to stand or walk in unsatable mini stilts/stilettos . If the suit doesn't hang the boot safety issue blame on the security firm then the security firm can conversely use it in their defense . Like , how were they to know if she was unsteady on her feet from a concussion or simply having difficulty walking in the unsafe footwear ?

M.S. the situtions you are concerned about are mostly hypothetical and ,therefore, irrelevant to the suit . You are veering way off the situation that actually caused the actual injury . Patrons would not be aware of what would be safe or unsafe to wear inside JPJ as many would have been there for the first time . The security company on the other hand would be required to be aware if mini stilt steel stilettos were a safety hazard within that particular building . They clearly were unsafe but no measures were taken by RMC/JPJA to ban them or at minimum post a cautionary notice .