An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a
business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition. The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that
missing the event was not a matter of public safety.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law
prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the
lawsuit was bullshit. If the guy weren't showboating, how could he have
more successfully sued for damages?
https://www.wbez.org/public-safety/2025/08/08/chicago-gaza-war-palestine-israel-lawsuit-ohare-airport-lawsuit-protest-demonstration
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a
business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition.
The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that
missing the event was not a matter of public safety.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law
prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the
lawsuit was bullshit.
Aug 9, 2025 at 10:54:29 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a >>business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition.
How was it not involuntary? He didn't sign up for it and he couldn't go >anywhere because of their actions. What was his reasonable alternative? >Abandon his car on the freeway and hope he could find it upon his return and >then have to pay (probably) thousands in fines and tow storage fees, and then >walk miles on the freeway with his luggage to the airport, only to have missed >his flight anyway because walking takes way longer then driving?
The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that missing the event
was not a matter of public safety.
(1) He demonstrably was injured. The judge is denying reality so that he >(she?) can just dismiss a case he doesn't like.
(2) Since when does the tort of false imprisonment include a public safety >element? I have a copy of the 2nd Restatement of Torts on my shelf and nowhere >in the section covering false imprisonment does it say an issue of public >safety must be present for the tort to be complete.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law >>prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
If it's intentionally caused, then yeah. Might make people think twice before >jamming up a freeway on purpose. Sane people call that a good thing.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the >>lawsuit was bullshit.
Based on the actual law (as opposed to feelz and political biases) it seems >that he made a prima facie case to me.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Aug 9, 2025 at 10:54:29 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a
business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition.
How was it not involuntary? He didn't sign up for it and he couldn't go
anywhere because of their actions. What was his reasonable alternative?
Abandon his car on the freeway and hope he could find it upon his return and >> then have to pay (probably) thousands in fines and tow storage fees, and then
walk miles on the freeway with his luggage to the airport, only to have
missed
his flight anyway because walking takes way longer than driving?
As long as he could walk away, despite being responsible for his vehicle
and not wanting to abandon his property, he wasn't imprisoned, which I'm guessing is probably correct.
The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that missing the event
was not a matter of public safety.
(1) He demonstrably was injured. The judge is denying reality so that he
(she?) can just dismiss a case he doesn't like.
The judge was female.
Obviously I agree with you. The forseeable consequence was disrupting
ground to air connections at the airport. The loss of economic activity
at the other end of the flight is more indirect.
I'd say that the protestors shut down the highway in a premeditated
manner with intent to cause this specific disruption.
Those affected by the disruption were injured. That's a tort.
(2) Since when does the tort of false imprisonment include a public safety >> element? I have a copy of the 2nd Restatement of Torts on my shelf and
nowhere
in the section covering false imprisonment does it say an issue of public
safety must be present for the tort to be complete.
Yeah, I was going to ask you about that.
Seems to me that the judge was somehow giving the protestors speech
rights that were superior to the rights of people they harmed but
there's no way in hell to treat this kind of disruption as a public
forum.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law
prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
If it's intentionally caused, then yeah. Might make people think twice before
jamming up a freeway on purpose. Sane people call that a good thing.
I really wanted these assholes to write big fat checks.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the
lawsuit was bullshit.
Based on the actual law (as opposed to feelz and political biases) it seems >> that he made a prima facie case to me.
For false imprisonment? Shouldn't he have sued for something else as
well in case he got ruled against on that?
If he had sued on intentional harm alone (I don't know what statute that
is), he'd have stood a better chance of surviving the motion to dismiss.
@hy was he in federal court and not state court as it didn't appear that
he sued under federal law?
Aug 10, 2025 at 10:52:59 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Aug 9, 2025 at 10:54:29 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza >>>>protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a >>>>business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which >>>>pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were >>>>the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet >>>>the definition.
How was it not involuntary? He didn't sign up for it and he couldn't go >>>anywhere because of their actions. What was his reasonable alternative? >>>Abandon his car on the freeway and hope he could find it upon his return >>>and then have to pay (probably) thousands in fines and tow storage fees, >>>and then walk miles on the freeway with his luggage to the airport,
only to have missed his flight anyway because walking takes way longer >>>than driving?
As long as he could walk away, despite being responsible for his vehicle >>and not wanting to abandon his property, he wasn't imprisoned, which I'm >>guessing is probably correct.
No, if you make it unreasonably difficult, onerous, or expensive for someone >to leave a place, you can still be liable for false imprisonment, even if the >person could technically walk away.
As is the case with most torts, the devil is in what a jury finds to be >'unreasonable'. But that's their call, not the judge's.
. . .
On 8/10/2025 1:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a
business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition. The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that
missing the event was not a matter of public safety.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law
prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the
lawsuit was bullshit. If the guy weren't showboating, how could he have
more successfully sued for damages?
https://www.wbez.org/public-safety/2025/08/08/chicago-gaza-war-palestine-israel-lawsuit-ohare-airport-lawsuit-protest-demonstration
Since nuisance protests are okay (which, as a philosophy, has always
seemed wrongheaded), he should've planned for such a possibility.
On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 11:52:52 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 8/10/2025 1:54 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
An attorney from Indiana, trying to get to O'Hare, sued pro-Gaza
protestors who blocked the roadway. He said he missed his flight, a
business dinner and networking opportunities.
Now, he had real damages but he sued for false imprisonment, which
pissed off the judge. In his filing, he said that the protestors were
the Hamas propaganda arm and were extending the war.
The judge wrote that the confinement wasn't involuntary and didn't meet
the definition. The judge wrote that the man wasn't injured and that
missing the event was not a matter of public safety.
The defendants' attorneys argued if the plaintiff's theory of law
prevailed, then any event causing a traffic jam could be liable for a
tort of false imprisonment.
I don't agree with the judge that he wasn't injured but obviously the
lawsuit was bullshit. If the guy weren't showboating, how could he have
more successfully sued for damages?
https://www.wbez.org/public-safety/2025/08/08/chicago-gaza-war-palestine-israel-lawsuit-ohare-airport-lawsuit-protest-demonstration
Since nuisance protests are okay (which, as a philosophy, has always
seemed wrongheaded), he should've planned for such a possibility.
Interesting that people show now be expected to be held hostage by
nutjob lefties.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 43:07:30 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 77,601 |