O’Keefe family lawyers fight to keep emotional distress claims against Karen Read
Lawyers for the family of John O'Keefe accused Karen Read on Monday of "fabricating a conspiracy" to deflect responsibility for his death as they lobbied a judge not to dismiss parts of the wrongful death lawsuit Read faces.
Read's attorneys are asking Judge Daniel O'Shea to dismiss the parts of the suit that claim negligent infliction of emotional distress by Read against O'Keefe's parents, brother and niece. They claim that because none of the plaintiffs actually witnessed the collision they say took O'Keefe's life, they can't claim to have suffered emotionally from it.
Damon Seligson, a lawyer representing Read, said the emotional distress claims brought forward by O'Keefe's family were already covered by the wrongful death statute in the state.
"None of the plaintiffs came upon the decedent in close enough proximity to state a claim for emotional distress," he said in Plymouth Superior Court Monday. "What we're asking the court to do is to dismiss out the emotional distress claims because they are duplicative, and allow the plaintiffs to pursue the wrongful death action."
A lawyer for the Waterfall Bar and Grille, one of two bars in Canton where Read and O'Keefe drank leading up to his death, both of which are named as defendants in the suit, said emotional distress claims are for those "in the zone of danger" or "percipient witnesses."
But Marc Diller, a lawyer representing the O'Keefe family, laid out in great detail why the O'Keefes are entitled to make such a claim. As a matter of law, he said the claims cleared the relatively low standard necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.
Read's lawyers' reliance on the time of the alleged accident is "misplaced," he argued.
Much of Diller's rebuttal focused on recounting the night of O'Keefe's death as his family perceived it, in so doing essentially parroting the claims made by prosecutors during Read's two criminal trials, which ultimately concluded with her acquittal this June .
"Karen ... reverses her SUV. She knocks JJ down. She leaves him to die in the cold," Diller recounted, using the nickname O'Keefe's family and friends called him. "From January 29 forward, Karen Reed floods. She fabricates a conspiracy. She launches a public campaign of disinformation."
"She pits her followers against the O'Keefe family, and all the while, Karen knows that the O'Keefe family is also vulnerable, grieving another tragedy in their family," Diller continued.
Seligson, the lawyer for Read, said her team intended to refute many of the claims recited by Diller in his argument about the collision. As for the claims of a conspiracy, Seligson suggested that was exactly why Read should be allowed to sue the Massachusetts State Police and several civilian witnesses as part of the suit brought by O'Keefe's family.
Judge Daniel O'Shea did not immediately rule on the motion, but indicated he would do so prior to a status conference scheduled for Nov. 21.
O'Shea also suggested the parties in the case should work to settle the suit out of court, rather than proceeding through a lengthy court proceeding and trial.
"Resolving cases resolves uncertainty, which is perhaps the most important thing," he said. "I think it's important that your clients know that there is an alternative way out of this. Money damages are all the plaintiff can ask for."
"Ask yourselves, is it worth going forward with all the uncertainty?" he added.
Outside the courthouse, Alan Jackson, the lawyer who led Read's criminal defense team, who has now joined her for the civil case, said she would be open to resolving the case.
"Every single civil case should at least have that on the table," he said. "It depends on how reasonable the other side is."
"Civil cases are not about making a point; they're about trying to seek the truth. That's what Karen's going to do with the civil case," he said.
Karen Read wrongful death lawsuit
Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .
