Travyon Martin Parents Settle Wrongful Death Claim for Over One Million Dollars

The parents of Travyon Martin sued the Home Owners Association that had George Zimmerman as their neighborhood watchman. The Home Owners Association gave Martins parents over a million dollars. There is no admission of guilt. It looks to me like the Home Owners Association basically gave it to the parents so they would just go away. (Considering the death threats made against Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers, I'm not surprised they just paid it out to be done with it) There is no information in the report as to why the Martin Parents thought the Home Owners Association was liable.

Travyon Martin Parents Settle Wrongful Death Claim

Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful death claim for an amount believed to be more than $1 million against a Florida homeowners association where their teen son was killed, Fox News confirms. ...

“It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties,” the settlement said.

I am simply going to say this.... If my son were shot and killed and I believed it to be in bad faith or a bad shoot? I wouldn't settle for a billion. No number would be enough to stop me from having my day in the light of open court. That day would be the last voice my son, in that circumstance, would ever have in this world to have a voice raised for him. It would never come again.

We all have different priorities. ...and there I leave it, without getting into the patently objectionable for my deeper feelings on the story.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I am simply going to say this.... If my son were shot and killed and I believed it to be in bad faith or a bad shoot? I wouldn't settle for a billion. No number would be enough to stop me from having my day in the light of open court. That day would be the last voice my son, in that circumstance, would ever have in this world to have a voice raised for him. It would never come again.

We all have different priorities. ...and there I leave it, without getting into the patently objectionable for my deeper feelings on the story.

This is a settlement for negligence on behalf of the HOA. This does not absolve Zimmerman from any wrong doing nor does it prevent the parents for having their day in court.

Zimmerman waived the option for dismissal and will face criminal charges.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


I understand exactly what this case is. I had to review it when it was first posted at the site I mod, this morning. My statement still stands and it's how I feel. I wasn't putting it out there to start a huge debate. Principle is a funny thing...and settlement is a cop out. Such are the feelings I hold. Right or Wrong in other's eyes.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm not saying it's right or wrong - but what other amends could be made? I don't understand the opinion that accepting a monetary settlement in any way, shape or form indicates that the family doesn't grieve just as badly as you would if you lost a loved one to a violent act. Obviously a million dollars doesn't replace their lost son - but it can go a long way toward relieving the stresses of life and allowing them to find closure in their son's death.

I have my opinions on the Zimmerman case, and they are based on the laws, rules and regulations I learned when I got my own CCW permit. If the HOA settled with Martin's family they obviously felt that there was a case against them. Perhaps this civil matter is an indication of what we can expect from the criminal charges.

It just goes to show that whatever happens it's the money that has the last word. It's unfortunate the young man died as a result of the incident. I really wish since he wasn't doing anything illegal he insisted that Zimmerman call the police who should have Zimmerman in his place.

I would also like to point out that the once again, Fox News twists facts and reports lies:

Trayvon was shot and killed by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012.

George Zimmerman was NOT a neighborhood watch volunteer. He was not a member of any recognized neighborhood watch. In fact, he appointed himself to his own neighborhood watch. As there were other people associated with Zimmerman's vigilante neighborhood watch, it can be assumed that the HOA was aware of this organization and did nothing to regulate or stop it. Additionally, Zimmerman did not follow the protocols of an official neighborhood watch. This is speculation, but if the plaintiff could demonstrate that the HOA was complicit in allowing this rogue neighborhood watch to operate, they are liable for any actions committed by the neighborhood watch organization.

Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization.

Source 1
Source 2

Additionally there are reports that the HOA had received complaints regarding Zimmerman for his over-aggressive, vigilante behavior. People were uncomfortable with Zimmerman, and he had a history of this type of behavior. Again, this leads to the HOA being liable for his actions because they failed to take any meaningful action against him.

Source

I have been following this story closely for over a year - It's amazing to me how many facts are ignored by Zimmerman supporters regarding the events leading up to and ultimately ended in the loss of Trayvon Martin's life.

I thought Zimmerman was Not acting on behalf of the HOA? I thought this distinction had been made fairly early on in this case.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Wasn't there some dispute over whether Zimmerman was actually a neighborhood watchman at all? So then why would they be liable at all?

Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

thegrio.com...

Although mind you, this may have been a private neighborhood watch group, and I did read in some articles that he was granted a temporary position, so this is a little unclear to me.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Well, I would ask why someone is going after money? Is it to profit on the death? Is it to cause "pain" to the other side? This did not cause the Homeowners association any pain but higher premiums on their insurance coverage for the property. A million sounds like an Insurance cap and so, top of a quick settlement offer for the fast cash out before the process of court. No insurance company wants court. Whatever they offer, they figure a jury is, at best, a dice roll from awarding a good deal more than, IMO.

Personally, I never saw the point of suing people not DIRECTLY involved in a thing anyway.

Was a rep. from the Association there, that night? What Would you have had them do, to avoid liability? Notify police? Well, I believe the record showed the Police already knew him pretty well and over a period of time. They couldn't throw him out. He'd have sued them and won.

So it's really just a 'pin the tail on a payday' and very little else when a day in court to tell what happened from their perspective ...or more importantly, to have the evidence of the actions that night brought out in civil court (evidence rules aren't quite the same there...there IS a benefit..but not with settling?) isn't the point at all.

Again, just what precisely was the point of suing then, if not to go for the cash? ...and cash doesn't fix death. Only light shined on truth...and they just made sure that'll never happen in civil court.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There is no right to a jury in civil trials in state court.

Before there were any civil proceedings the HOA's insurance company offered 1 million to Martin's family. They refused that offer.

I'm not saying the point was NOT the cash at all. Obviously in a civil suit or insurance claim the goal for the claimant is a monetary award. What I am saying is that I don't see anything wrong with that. I know you want to twist it to look like it's JUST for money, but that's not the case. If something horrible happened to one of your family members, and you felt a party was liable for that event, and the only place you COULD hit them was the wallet - you really wouldn't?

You don't think it's prudent to sue for emotional damages? If someone in your family was killed (god forbid) and you felt that someone was liable, through negligence, of that death, you wouldn't sue them? You must be the most forgiving person in the world. Is it safe to assume you don't believe in the death penalty either?

I agree, no amount of money can replace a lost life... But what else can be given for reparation?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


If you can remember directly after the incident a lot of people were suspicious of the mothers motives. The thread is in the archives and towards the last pages you can read up on what I'm talking about. I don't expect you to do that but... Anyways, her actions led many to believe that she wanted to make money off of her sons name. I think we now have the answer to that.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

There is no right to a jury in civil trials in state court.

Okay, now you're just outright wrong and I say...need to check things a bit more carefully. It took me a couple minutes to find, but only a couple.

Your client has a constitutional right, in both civil and criminal cases, to have his or her case heard and decided by an “impartial” jury. See Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 22 and Section 16.

This fundamental right to an impartial jury is the same in both civil and criminal cases. State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984); City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3DCA 1985). The trial lawyer must be aware of Florida Statute 913.12 which states: “The qualifications of jurors in criminal cases shall be the same as their qualifications in civil cases.” The “burden of proof” may be different between civil and criminal cases, but the qualifications of jurors are not!

Source

The status of the right to a jury in a civil trial is determined by the Constitution or laws of each state. In the state of Florida, it absolutely is a basic right to have a jury at a civil trial and while the rules of evidence ARE different, the rules regarding the requirements to produce evidence for the case sure aren't more lenient. We'd have learned the truth and on the record of open court for all to read themselves, forever.

Before there were any civil proceedings the HOA's insurance company offered 1 million to Martin's family. They refused that offer.

Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara said in February that Trayvon’s parents attempted to settle, but they rejected an offer of $1 million from the association or its insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America.

"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," Travelers said in a statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners association and/or the property managers."

Source

Indeed they did. It's interesting to see that a single company was turned down but now multiple companies, as the statement there suggests it's plural, were fine to settle with. Hmm.. I wonder if it wasn't more like a million PER. Who knows... Cash was the play though. Truth got kicked to the curb of personal wealth. I, for one, had been hoping for some truth in civil court from the start on this. A good amount about other high profile cases wouldn't be known or known as widely without civil cases in the past.

If something horrible happened to one of your family members, and you felt a party was liable for that event, and the only place you COULD hit them was the wallet - you really wouldn't?

I guess that would depend 100% on circumstances. I'll say what I would NOT do is sell principle for establishing what happened in a wrongful death (as the basis of this suit) for the quick pay of a pile of cash.

EVERYTHING about this society has become about cash ...and as the first part of my reply indicates, truth WAS to be had here, by simply not settling and going to trial. Cash also would have come as part of THAT path too. It just would not have been the quickest or easiest path. One of my family members would deserve my effort for their memory. Just that one last time.

I agree, no amount of money can replace a lost life... But what else can be given for reparation?

If the HOA was REALLY liable in any logical (not legal technicality) way, the policy change, public admission of guilt and then.....and only then ... Perhaps they do pay for what they would have just been forced to admit to. Absolutely if it took all that to get that admission and positive action toward insuring it could never happen again.

The criminal case sure won't have impact on whether policies change for those who didn't become millionaires and still live there. I don't know if the HOA really was liable or not...no one ever really will, either.

The best system money can buy ,,,into silence, entirely too often.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The Home Owners Association gave Martins parents over a million dollars.

there is no proof of any such thing
the HOA's insurance offered a million and it was refused.

and, according to local sources ...

Sentin el

Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and his estate agreed to set aside their wrongful-death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses.

so, in light of the actual documents, i doubt they got much at all.
they wanted Travelers to pay but that was shot down in court some time ago.

as for why the HOA ?
in a case like this, everyone who 'might' be culpable gets filed against.
call it our 'litigous society'

ETA - did anyone else see the photo on Yahoo earlier ?
Sybrina was not a happy camper.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
If the HOA settled with Martin's family they obviously felt that there was a case against them

Not necessarily. Lots of corporations and business' and rich people settle law suits against them out of court, not because they are guilty, but because it costs them less to do so. People sue deep pockets all the time and those deep pockets weigh the cost of going to court vs just paying something to make it all go away quicker and cheaper. Payment doesn't equate with guilt.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

If Zimmerman wasn't part of the neighborhood watch, and not controlled by the neighborhood watch, then how could the parents have sued the neighborhood watch because of Zimmerman? I'm not following. Zimmerman had a walkie talkie that went to law enforcement, right?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

The Home Owners Association gave Martins parents over a million dollars.

there is no proof of any such thing

the HOA's insurance offered a million and it was refused.

Right back atchya. Use your common sense ...
Dude ... the parents rejected a million dollar offer and went back for MORE. The parties then agreed to the amount that came after the million was rejected by Martins parents. That means it'll be MORE than a million dollars. Martins parents wouldn't reject a million .. then go for more but accept less than a million. That doesn't make sense.

USA Today
NY Times

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

If Zimmerman wasn't part of the neighborhood watch, and not controlled by the neighborhood watch, then how could the parents have sued the neighborhood watch because of Zimmerman?

I'm not following. Zimmerman had a walkie talkie that went to law enforcement, right?

I suppose part of an "officially sanctioned" neighbourhood watch's policies would be to ensure individuals in the neighbourhood weren't going freelance and pretending to be neighbourhood watch and giving their efforts a bad name, you know like, by shooting one of the neighbours, or their guests?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Thanks for the response.

So, by having a neighborhood watch, if anything bad happens in the neighborhood then it's the fault of neighborhood watch?? I would think that if that's the case then no one would have a neighborhood watch because they suddenly become liable for all the bad stuff that slips by them.

I"m not seeing how the Home Owners Association did anything wrong. It hasn't been proven that Zimmerman did anything wrong so how could the Home Owners Association be guilty of anything? And even if Zimmerman ends up being guilty of something, it hasn't been proven that the Home Owners Association was responsible for Zimmermans actioins.

For now I"m sticking with the opinion that the Home Owners Association just gave these people $$$ for them to take their law suit and go away. Lots of deep pockets do that .. it's cheaper and easier .. and considering the death threats that have been made against Zimmerman and others, I'm not surprised that the Home Owners Association would pay money to make it go away.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Thanks for the response.

So, by having a neighborhood watch, if anything bad happens in the neighborhood then it's the fault of neighborhood watch?? I would think that if that's the case then no one would have a neighborhood watch because they suddenly become liable for all the bad stuff that slips by them.

I"m not seeing how the Home Owners Association did anything wrong. It hasn't been proven that Zimmerman did anything wrong so how could the Home Owners Association be guilty of anything? And even if Zimmerman ends up being guilty of something, it hasn't been proven that the Home Owners Association was responsible for Zimmermans actioins.

If there were reports made about a resident(Zimmerman) being a neighbourhood nuisance and they hadn't acted on them, I'd say they have some responsibility. HOA's could decide it's all too much rsponsibility and pack the whole neighbourhood security lark in, or they could alternatively pay just a little more attention to the goings on in their locales, and nip in the bud cowboys like George..

Originally posted by FlyersFan
For now I"m sticking with the opinion that the Home Owners Association just gave these people $$$ for them to take their law suit and go away. Lots of deep pockets do that .. it's cheaper and easier .. and considering the death threats that have been made against Zimmerman and others, I'm not surprised that the Home Owners Association would pay money to make it go away.

These people don't normally just give money away, so maybe they aren't too confident of George's chances and want to pay out early. If Zimmerman gets convicted, can the Fultons go back and ask for more?