Court Holds Victims of Baltimore Riots Can “Sue the Bastards“; Legal Liability Premised on Government Decision to Let Riots Continue
Q2 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more
Victims of Baltimore Riots Can Sue
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 30, 2021) - A judge has ruled that victims of a riot - in this case a riot following the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore - can sue the city to recover for their damages; a legal tactic which might also be effective in other cities in which police deliberately did little or nothing to quell riots and try to prevent criminal destruction of property.
Since the police and the criminal justice system failed in many jurisdictions to protect innocent citizens from the illegal destructive actions of demonstrators, civil tort actions for damages - against both the responsible municipality and the individual criminal rioters - may be the only way to achieve justice, and to deter future instances where authorities may likewise decide, as a matter of policy, to let the criminals run rampant, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
In Chae Bros. v. Mayor & City of Baltimore, the defendants asked Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher to dismiss a lawsuit brought by property owners and small businesses, after pre-trial discovery but before trial. However, she refused to do so, ruling that the law permitted such a civil tort action for damages caused during a riot, and that the plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to convince a jury to make a monetary award.
A key factor was that the Mayor had admitted to ordering police to back off and let the rioters continue their illegal destruction; a tactic which appears to have been used in riots in other cities as well, says Banzhaf. In the court's words, "the Mayor initially admitted that the City 'gave those who wished to destroy space to do that[.]'"
Furthermore, the court found that "on those facts, a jury could reasonably decide that the City 'had good reason to believe that rioting would occur on April 27th.'" It also noted that "the City coordinated with the BPD [Baltimore Police Department] to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, the BPD did not engage with protesters."
Finally it noted that a jury could well find that the City failed to use "reasonable means" to quell criminal conduct. On this basis it held the requirements for imposing legal liability under Maryland law had been met.
The City's Response Fell Short
In the court's words: "a reasonable juror could also (and perhaps simultaneously) conclude that the City remains liable for the ensuing property damage arguably attributable to the 'trade-off' between more traditional anti-riot measures and the City's policy decisions in April of 2015. Regardless, at this stage, the Plaintiffs have produced enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that the City's response fell short of its obligation to act with 'reasonable diligence and all the powers entrusted to [it].'"
Since media reports have indicated that other cities faced with criminal actions by rioters (e.g. wanton destruction of property, looting, arson, physical assaults on people, etc.) likewise stood back and did little or nothing to stop the illegal acts, similar lawsuits against other cities and their mayors might also be possible.
Banzhaf notes that, in addition, victims of riots can also sue one or more of the individual rioters themselves, especially those who were arrested and even found guilty of criminal activity. Indeed, he notes that several lawsuits - including one he helped instigate - against individual lawbreakers have already been filed, including one filed against those involved in the Capitol riot in Washington on January 6th.
In such cases, any one or two victims can bring a class action lawsuit against as many individual rioters as they can identify (e.g., from arrest records, video recordings, etc.).
Joint And Several Liability
As a result, under the legal doctrine of "joint and several liability," each individual plaintiff who suffered harm can obtain a judgment against each and every individual criminal for all of the damages he or members of the class suffered.
In other words, each individual rioter can be held fully liable caused by all of the damages caused by all of the rioters.
In doing this, the plaintiffs do not have to show which rioters caused any specific harm, says the law professor, who has been called "a King of Class Action Lawsuits," as well as "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," an "Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer's Trial Lawyer." and "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars."
While many who engaged in criminal destruction might have few assets against which the successful plaintiffs can proceed to satisfy such huge judgements - including possible punitive damages for intentional wrongdoing - some may have liability insurance to cover such awards, and others may have salaries which can be garnished, and homes against which the plaintiffs' lawyers can proceed.
Someone whose own home was destroyed by criminal rioters might get a certain ironic satisfaction in proceeding against the homes of those responsible, suggests Banzhaf, noting that such lawsuits against individual rioters might also deter similar criminal actions by demonstrators in the future.
The right to peacefully protest is guaranteed by the Constitution, but that does not include a right to engage in looting, wanton destruction of property, arson, and physical attacks on police or innocent third parties, and those who engage in such criminal conduct to promote a cause can and should be held responsible to fullest extent of the law, he argues, and that includes civil tort liability in addition to any legal action under criminal statutes.
Updated on
