Doc sued for shooting intruder (WI)

Status
Not open for further replies.

K-Romulus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
1,146
Location
Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
Well, here is one for the record books the next time you hear "that never happens."

"Loss of earning ability?" and "Diminished quality of life?" ROFL:rolleyes:

http://www.gazetteextra.com/prochaska092606.asp

Doc sued for shooting intruder

(Published Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:29:12 AM CDT)

By Mike DuPre'
Gazette Staff

The man shot by a Janesville doctor in what authorities think was a burglary of the doctor's home has sued the doctor for negligently using excessive force.

Kurt Prochaska, 39, Janesville, still is awaiting trial on charges of burglary and felony criminal damage because of events late on the night of Oct. 31, 2005, when, police reported, he crashed through the ceiling of Michael Rainiero's home, 2520 Linden Ave., Janesville, in an attempt to burglarize the home.

Prochaska is now in state Department of Corrections' custody because his probation for earlier crimes was revoked.

His lawsuit does not specify an amount for damages.

In the suit filed in August in Milwaukee County, Prochaska admits being in Rainiero's home when he was shot once by Rainiero. But Prochaska claims in the suit:
"Rainiero then returned to his bedroom, retrieved a handgun from the closet, released the trigger lock, he then called out to his wife to call 911, whereupon he then returned to the hallway, his hands were shaking badly, he knelt down, yelled at the intruder to leave, in a split second he decided to fire the weapon towards the subject because he wanted him to leave.

"Rainiero negligently fired a shot and accidentally hit the plaintiff in the back, severing the plaintiff's spinal cord."

The lawsuit alleges Rainiero's negligent use of excessive force "in dealing with the intruder/plaintiff" harmed Prochaska by causing "severe and permanent injuries, severe and relentless pain" and medical expenses, loss of earning ability and diminished quality of life.

In his response to the suit, Rainiero, a surgeon in Dean Health System, denies any negligence or using excessive force. Rainiero maintains that he was exercising his right to defend himself and his family.

He also asked that the suit be tried in front of a jury in Rock County, where the incident happened and all the involved parties live, rather than in Milwaukee County, where the suit was filed.

Four days after the shooting, Rock County District Attorney David O'Leary said he would not charge Rainiero in the incident because the doctor had acted in self-defense.

"His actions were justified and reasonable," the district attorney said. "Not only was Dr. Rainiero entitled to defend himself, he was entitled to defend his family.

"Dr. Rainiero had no reasonable opportunity to retreat as the intruder was not complying with Dr. Rainiero's repeated demands to leave the residence and was still inside the residence with Dr. Rainiero's family," O'Leary said.


Attempts to reach attorneys for Rainiero and Prochaska were unsuccessful Monday afternoon.

According to police reports, Rainiero said that after he was awakened, perhaps by his dog's barking, he saw a man in a hallway in his home and then saw the intruder duck into a bathroom.

Rainiero told a detective that he yelled at the intruder to leave even when he couldn't see the man because the intruder was still in the bathroom and that he repeatedly yelled at the intruder to leave after the man returned to the hallway.

"He stated he yelled at him to get out and the subject did not respond verbally, but he also did not head towards the door," the detective wrote. "He stated that he kept yelling at him to get out and the subject did not appear to be listening to him.

"He stated that his fear was growing and he was concerned that the intruder was going to move into even a darker section of the house and therefore become even more dangerous.

"He stated that in that split second he decided he needed to fire the weapon," the detective reported.

Neighbors told police that they heard a male voice yell, "Get out" several times.

At home with Rainiero were his wife and three children.

A roof vent had been removed from Rainiero's house, and it appeared the intruder had dropped through the hole left by the vent and crashed through the plaster ceiling beneath the roof, police reported.

Two Janesville firefighters told police that Prochaska had full use of his limbs and struggled with them in the ambulance.

An emergency room doctor at Mercy Hospital in Janesville told police that Prochaska "suffered some injury to his spinal cord as a result of the bullet entering near his spine," according to police reports.

Another detective reported that when he spoke with Prochaska's wife, Julie Prochaska, three days after the shooting that Julie told him that the doctor had no right to shoot at her husband and that she intended to sue the doctor.

Police also reported that a nurse at University Hospital in Madison, where Prochaska also was transferred, said 10 days after the shooting that Prochaska had feeling in his legs but was having trouble standing on his own.

Photo of the poor victim:
prochaska092606.jpg
 
he seems to have spent an awful lot of breath telling the man to leave. any intuders in my residence will not be afforded this courtesy.
 
"loss of earning ability..."

yeah, on his burglary/home invasion career ...
 
Despite our damnable lack of CCW in WI, I believed we had civil suit shielding on any justifiable shooting. Perhaps it's only justifiable homicide.

I guess I was wrong.

IMO, a surgeon can afford better attorneys than some ambulance chaser a three-time loser could get on contingency. I suspect he'll win, but it's a shame it should have to cost him any time or money.

And since the burglar is white, I have no idea what jury shopping in Milwaukee would accomplish. This isn't the OJ trial. Madison might get him a bit further, they might pull a few lotus-eaters and UW students who've got nothing better to do and haven't been exposed to the "real world yet".

Even then, I don't think it would help. Despite all our other craziness, WI is not so far gone that a jury is going to have any sympathy for an admitted burglar.
 
Just proves that anyone can sue anyone for anything. I hope the case is thrown out of court, but the doctor still has to pay an attorney to defend him and go through a lot of hassle and publicity. I am sure some reporters, well paid by the Brady Campaign, will stick up for the burglar.

Remember the idiot who sued his parents for having him?

Jim
 
Personally I love the, "He had no right to shoot my husband." comment from the wife. With regards to his earing potential can he now sue people who dont have a wheel chair ramp leaving him unable to rob their house?
 
How can this possibly be a negligence action? The doctor was attempting to intentionally kill the plaintiff. What possible standard of care could he have violated?

I think someone needs to attend a week of Torts I.

Two Janesville firefighters told police that Prochaska had full use of his limbs and struggled with them in the ambulance.

This is going to come back to bite him. Does anyone know if WI has civil immunity in self defense cases, or at least punitive damages for felons who bring unsuccessful actions against the people who shoot them?

Remember the idiot who sued his parents for having him?

I can think of a remedy in equity for this.
 
How can this possibly be a negligence action? The doctor was attempting to intentionally kill the plaintiff. What possible standard of care could he have violated?

I think someone needs to attend a week of Torts I.

ROTFL! Good point!

Does anyone know if WI has civil immunity in self defense cases, or at least punitive damages for felons who bring unsuccessful actions against the people who shoot them?

I was under the impression we did in WI. Still looking into that. I'm having a trouble finding any cites that say we do.
 
The basics are that if the BG turns to leave he is no longer a threat and shooting is not justified. ...When a BG is in your home YOU ARE IN DANGER and this is not the time to have a discussion with him.You should shoot immediately without a word.
 
Dead men file no lawsuits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Perhaps the scumbag's family does ... but at least, the dead man ain't a'gonna testify against the honest citizen at the trial. :) )

L.W.
 
beerslurpy said:
How can this possibly be a negligence action? The doctor was attempting to intentionally kill the plaintiff. What possible standard of care could he have violated?

I think someone needs to attend a week of Torts I.

You are correct that an intentional act is not a basis for negligence. The correct cause of action for an intentional act would be battery.

I think it's not clear that the shooting was necessary intentional, however. The plaintiff/robber might be arguing that the homeowner fired the gun accidentally. He notes that the doc's hand was shaking, and alleges that the doc "negligently fired a shot and accidentally hit the plaintiff in the back...." If the doc didn't actually intend to pull the trigger, and fired the gun "accidentally", it would indeed be a negligence cause of action.

In addition, the pleading states "in a split second he decided to fire the weapon towards the subject because he wanted him to leave." While that seems to allege an intentional act, he may be arguing that the intent was not to shoot the plaintiff but to scare him, and that the "negligence" lies in accidentally hitting the plaintiff. In other words, the claim is that he was negligent in aiming and controlling the fiream.

Still, as you point out, negligence requires a showing of a "duty" to the plaintiff and a breach of the standard of care. I think he'll have a hard time showing that the homeowner had a duty to protect him from getting shot while he was trespassing in the homeowner's home for purpose of committing a crime.

In addition, the homeowner apparently claims the shooting was intentional (duh!). It's gonna be hard for the plaintiff to prove otherwise.
 
And since the burglar is white, I have no idea what jury shopping in Milwaukee would accomplish.

Most of the time, if they think they file the suit in a more remote venue, they make it more difficult for the defendent to respond, and therefore, it's more likely for the homeowner's insurance company to settle. Forcing them to move suit to the venue closer to the homeowner is the best response.

The poor, unfortunate :)rolleyes: ) burglar's wife is just looking for the insurance company to pay off rather than spend the cash to fight the suit.
 
Why would a court not move the venue back to the homeowners area? Thats where the parties, the witnesses and the evidence are. Stupid burglars.

And yeah, my assumption was that the burglar would have a difficult time changing a judge's mind when everyone but him is claiming that the shooting was intentional. And regardless, I dont think a jury is going to have much sympathy for someone who commits hot burglaries.
 
Is the doctor allowed to counter-sue? That would be funny if the guy got shot, went to jail, and lost all of what little posessions he has (I doubt a low life theif has much).
 
ceetee's comment about getting the insurance company to settle triggered another thought regarding the "negligence" vs. "intentional tort" distinction. Homeowner's insurance policies typically cover liability of the homeowner for negligence, but NOT for intentional acts. Thus, the plaintiff is pleading negligence specifically to implicate the insurance coverage. If he pleaded only battery, there would be no insurance coverage.

That would make sense to me if the defendat was uncollectable, but we're told he's a doctor. I imagine he has plenty of assets even in the absence of insurance, so pleading negligence to get the insurance only has the effect of triggering the insurance company's duty to pay for his defense instead of him having to pay for the lawyer out of his own pocket. Odd strategy.
 
69chevy said:
Is the doctor allowed to counter-sue? That would be funny if the guy got shot, went to jail, and lost all of what little posessions he has (I doubt a low life theif has much).

Sure, he can file a counterclaim, or a separate lawsuit. As you suggest, however, there's little point in it. The perp is almost certainly uncollectable, so what would that accomplish?
 
It would accomplish the garnishment of his meager prison wages, and later his private sector wages, to pay the Dr. It might not be much money but if I were the Dr. I would get some small measure of satisfaction from that check for a couple of dollars. Should the perp decide to work under the table to avoid wage garnishment he'll never be able to open a savings or checking account again since the Dr. could have them frozen and siezed for repayment. If the wife is also named as a plaintiff he could go after her pay and bank accounts as well. If I were the Dr. I would definately file a counter claim. I would think he could make a case for the perp causing him severe emotional distress at having been forced into a position where he had to decide to take someone's life to defend himself and his family. Also a direct and measurable claim for the damage, blood stains on the rug that had to be cleaned, repair of the ceiling, etc. that the perp caused to the Dr's house.
 
wuchak, you are technically correct in that a successful lawsuit could theoretically be used in that manner. It still won't work, however, and is a bad idea for a couple of reasons:

1. Because the defendant is uncollectable, no lawyer will take the case on a contingency basis. Thus, the doc would have to expend his own money to pursue the lawsuit. He would almost certainly spend far more on legal costs than he would ever reasonably anticipate getting in return.

2. If he pursues it successfully and obtains a judgment, the defendant will simply declare bankruptcy, effectively wiping out the judgment. Thus, no garnishment and no chance of ever recouping his legal costs.

3. I wouldn't recommend trying to make an apparently career criminal's life miserable via private action. You're unlike to accomplish any financial result for the reasons set forth above. In the meantime, you'll just piss him and his family off more, and keep it going for years and years. That substantially increases the odds that someone (him or his friends or family) will engage in retaliatory activity. I'm more interested in keeping my family safe than pursuing vengeance against a petty criminal.

4. Finally, private litigation should never be engaged in for punitive reasons. You won't get out of it what you want. Let the criminal justice system handle the punitive aspects. He'll have his hands full with the criminal charges against him. You won't have to pay the legal bills, and his animosity will be directed at the courts and prosecutor.
 
Sounds to me like the only negligent thing the doctor did was to stop firing a bit to soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top