Waterworks rape civil case settled

[LittleRedToyota]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08324/928970-85.stm

Waterworks Mall operator settles lawsuit over abduction, rape

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A rape victim who sued the operator of Waterworks Mall dropped her case yesterday in return for a monetary settlement.

Jurors had been selected to hear the woman's civil suit against J.J. Gumberg Co., but they never heard a word of testimony. In the hours before the trial was to start, Allegheny County Judge Michael Della Vecchia met in his chambers a dozen times with lawyers from each side. They agreed to the settlement in early afternoon, following the flurry of back-and-forth discussions.

"This is a very serious case and it's over," Judge Della Vecchia announced from the bench.

Terms of the settlement were sealed by his order. Neither side would discuss how much money Gumberg must pay the woman and her husband, who joined her in the lawsuit.

The couple, from Fox Chapel, filed suit under the pseudonyms Jane and John Doe. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette knows their identities, but the newspaper does not publish the names of rape victims.

Thomas Gebler, a lawyer for Gumberg, said he was glad the case was resolved. He declined comment on why the Braddock Hills-based company settled after picking a jury and making seven pretrial motions regarding evidence.

The case had been bitterly contested for months. Mr. Gebler tried unsuccessfully to force the woman to use her real name in the lawsuit. Two Allegheny County judges ruled previously that she could sue Gumberg anonymously, saying a precise identification would cause her undue embarrassment.

The victim and her 16-month-old daughter were kidnapped from the mall parking lot on April 7, 2007, by Jimmy Lee Tayse, a career criminal from Johnstown.

He held a knife to the baby's throat, then told the woman to drive him out of state. Terrified that he would kill her little girl, the woman took him to Ohio. Mr. Tayse then raped the woman three times and robbed her.

William Pietragallo II, the woman's lawyer, said Mr. Tayse committed the crimes but Gumberg was "his enabler."

Mr. Pietragallo said Waterworks Mall had no security cameras and no guards on duty when Mr. Tayse kidnapped the woman and her baby at 10:30 a.m. A guard was scheduled to start work at noon.

He said he planned to offer circumstantial evidence that Mr. Tayse slept in the Waterworks parking the night before the kidnapping.

Mr. Gebler said Gumberg's investigation revealed that Mr. Tayse arrived at the mall the morning of the kidnapping, perhaps only half an hour before the attack. Mr. Tayse himself was the source of this information.

Judge Della Vecchia questioned whether Mr. Tayse's account carried any weight.

"Can we believe a word of what this man says? He's not exactly a pillar of the community," the judge said.

Mr. Tayse, now 31, is serving a prison sentence of 73 years to life.

Gumberg installed security cameras at the mall after the kidnapping, but Mr. Gebler said that decision was not necessarily related to the crime.

In a prepared statement, the victim and her husband said improved mall security was one goal of their lawsuit.

"We are pleased to bring this very unfortunate and difficult episode in our lives to a close. The resolution is both fair to us and protective of the public interest."

The woman has been under the care of a psychiatrist and a psychologist. In court filings, her lawyers said she has flashbacks and nightmares.

the fact that waterworks could be held in any way responsible for this ticks me off to no end. this is another step down the road of social diffusion of responsibility...another nail in the coffin of personal responsibility.

if something happened to this woman because of actual negligence on the part of the waterworks mall, that would be one thing. but there was no negligence. a criminal committed a crime...on his own. saying that the mall actually has some duty to have security guards and cameras is absurd, imho.

people need to understand that they are responsible for themselves...that includes being responsible for protecting yourself from violent criminals. it is *not*, or at least should not be, the responsibility of a private property owner who allows you onto their property to protect you from criminals.

argh.

i hope this woman at least uses some of her settlement money to get herself a gun, an LTCF, and some training. of course, i doubt she will...what she (and the rest of the world) has probably "learned" from this settlement is that someone else other than her is responsible for her ensuring her safety.

funny...the police are not legally responsible for protecting you, but waterworks mall is? good grief.

btw, i shop at waterworks mall all the time...giant eagle (a supermarket) and walmart are located there. frankly, this case notwithstanding, the chances of being assaulted there approach zero. nothing like forcing a company to spend a bunch of money based on a single incident--that was entirely the result of someone else's actions (and, frankly, partially the result of this woman being unprepared to defend herself and her child...as cold as that may sound, it is the truth. her lawyer calls waterworks mall an "enabler" in this case...in truth, the woman was the enabler, not the mall. of course, the real responsibility lies with the criminal.).

again argh.

(btw, i bet this would not have happened to SFN. )

[sluggie24]

Didn't you get the memo? The sheeple don't want to be responsible for themselves.......

[tes151]

So how would that play if the mall had " No Firearms/Weapons " signs at every entrance? Would, in some peoples opinion around here, that be enough to throw the burden of a persons security on the owner of the mall? Just playing devils advocate.........

[Pa. Patriot]

the fact that waterworks could be held in any way responsible for this ticks me off to no end.

...funny...the police are not legally responsible for protecting you, but waterworks mall is? good grief.

I hear your frustration and agree with your entire post.

However, lets be sure to frame this in proper perspective.

A court of law did NOT find the mall responsible.

The mall owner agreed to a settlement outside of court. IOW: they made a decision that it was better for them to pay than to do through a trial. Does that mean they thought they would loose? I dunno, thay may have done it out of publicity concerns. Either way, the makk was not found negligent here. They voluntarily compensated these people.

Just for technicality sake

[LittleRedToyota]

So how would that play if the mall had " No Firearms/Weapons " signs at every entrance? Would, in some peoples opinion around here, that be enough to throw the burden of a persons security on the owner of the mall? Just playing devils advocate.........

i think not because no one is forcing you to go there.

at any rate, i carry there all the time. there are no signs.

(btw, even though this is called a "mall", it is not an indoor mall...it is a "strip mall" or whatever it is called when each store has it's own entrance and the essentially just share a parking lot.)

[LittleRedToyota]

I hear your frustration and agree with your entire post.

However, lets be sure to frame this in proper perspective.

A court of law did NOT find the mall responsible.

The mall owner agreed to a settlement outside of court. IOW: they made a decision that it was better for them to pay than to do through a trial. Does that mean they thought they would loose? I dunno, thay may have done it out of publicity concerns. Either way, the makk was not found negligent here. They voluntarily compensated these people.

Just for technicality sake

very good point.

[Robert Kayland]

Yeah, excellent point about the mall not being found responsible.

Unfortunately in today's society, it's often far cheaper to just pay out some money on an otherwise bogus suit than let your lawyers go through the entire system process to get you actual justice.

[Pa. Patriot]

Yeah, excellent point about the mall not being found responsible.

Unfortunately in today's society, it's often far cheaper to just pay out some money on an otherwise bogus suit than let your lawyers go through the entire system process to get you actual justice.

Exactly right. It was most likely a business decision on what would cost less.

Unfortunately, it has essentially the same effect as being guilty of some liability and without due process.

Such is the American court system today.

[TaePo]

I will admit to this:

If the mall was posted no firearms.

If she left her firearm at home or in the car....

Sue by all means.

[TaePo]

(btw, even though this is called a "mall", it is not an indoor mall...it is a "strip mall" or whatever it is called when each store has it's own entrance and the essentially just share a parking lot.)

A mall is built by a developer. The developer sometimes sells part or all to a big store. Sometimes they keep an interest if not all.

The stores that come in pay rent and/or pay a percentage of their net profits back to the developer/owner.

I don't know if there is code for lights, amt of parking, guards or videos etc.

I know there are for handicap spaces, firelanes and entrances and restrooms etc.

Anyone here in the business?