BenGlassLaw announces that argument has been set in the Supreme Court of Virginia on a challenge to the state's charitable immunity laws. Glass represents a 25 year old mentally and physically disabled man who alleges that he was injured while under the care of employees of Didlake, Inc.
3 Comments to "Virginia Supreme Court sets argument in Didlake Charitable Immunity Case"
Newfoundland and Labrador was probably the first place in North America where clergy abuse came to public consciousness and rocked the pillars of society. The infamous abuse by Christian Brothers at the Mount Cashel Orphanage blew the lid off, but numerous suits against priests and ministers have followed. In one of these, charitable immunity was raised by our own Court of Appeal as a defence for churches who had turned a blind eye and knowingly moved priests around and given them new opportunities for predation. Fortunately on further appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada soundly banished this unjust anti-victim defence from modern law in this country. For those who have an interest, the case is John Doe v. Bennett, 2004 SCC 17 (CanLII)
And Ben, you might think of relying on Bennett in your own argument as an illustration of how an advanced common law system has abrogated this unjust doctrine. Good luck.
Posted by Ches Crosbie
on August 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM
The Supreme Court's setting arguement in the Didlake Charitable Immunity Case is hopefully the precursor to the tumbling down of the anachronistic charitable Immunity doctrine.Many of the charities invoking the Immunity doctrine are more big businesses than big charities. The "charity" appears to me to be the big salaries often paid to Administrators.
Ben Glass, one of the finest trial lawyers in the United States, has hit a nerve in the unmasking of "charities" like Didlake. Hopefully, the Virginia Supreme court agrees.
Posted by Charles Hofheimer
on August 14, 2009 at 09:01 PM
Real charities at one time may have needed this immunity.They needed it because they had little to no assets. In today's society, a "charity" can be and usually is a big business. The label really is just a tax loophole .With the 32 million dollars they generate ,why couldn't they buy insurance like other reasonable businesses- big and small alike? I guess they have no incentive to take reasonable care of any of its patients.I would be scared to put any family member of mine in their care. This is abuse of the worse kind - to hurt a disabled person and be able to hide behind a technicality. Kudos to Ben Glass for fighting abuse of patients by big business for someone who can't do it by themselves.
And Ben, you might think of relying on Bennett in your own argument as an illustration of how an advanced common law system has abrogated this unjust doctrine. Good luck.