<modsnip - quoted post removed>
I think that's right, IMO. A possible cause of action would be intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, I think? To prove that, BL's parents would have to prove that the Ls had a duty to act (what would a reasonable person do in that specific situation) within that narrow window of time and that their failure to act caused the GPs parents emotional distress. A valuation of the emotional distress would be challenging. How do you value the difference between the level of emotional distress you feel because your child is missing vs. the increased level of emotional distress due to the Ls non-compliance (if the facts show that to be true). The outcome was the same. GP had already been killed. If it turns out that BL told his parents that he had killed GP when he got home, and they did know, then there might be a stronger case? Certainly, the fact would weigh more heavily in GP's parents favor. All MOO.
I think that's right, IMO. A possible cause of action would be intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, I think? To prove that, BL's parents would have to prove that the Ls had a duty to act (what would a reasonable person do in that specific situation) within that narrow window of time and that their failure to act caused the GPs parents emotional distress. A valuation of the emotional distress would be challenging. How do you value the difference between the level of emotional distress you feel because your child is missing vs. the increased level of emotional distress due to the Ls non-compliance (if the facts show that to be true). The outcome was the same. GP had already been killed. If it turns out that BL told his parents that he had killed GP when he got home, and they did know, then there might be a stronger case? Certainly, the fact would weigh more heavily in GP's parents favor. All MOO.
Last edited by a moderator: