Judging by the note he supposedly wrote, I don't think Cyr is bright enough to trick anyone into doing anything. Of course, I was tricked into something with by 15 year old girl recently (I was young enough that it was legal thankfully, two months later, I'd be in trouble) so I'm suspicious.

Ghost, in almost all juurisdictins (maybe all), the SOL is tolled (does not start to run) until the aggrieved party is no longer a minor.

Seriously though, he probably asked her to help him find his lost dog....

I'm sure Eric Cyr isn't the smartest guy in the world (for example, most smart guys don't [allegedly] rape 15 year olds), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt that English probably isn't his first language, being from Montreal. But still, the grammar and spelling police have their work cute [sic] out for them.

Under no circumstances should a victim on rape, or attempted rape, be blamed. Blaming the victim happens a lot in this country, but a lot more in rape cases than in other crimes.

Wouldn't fewer teenage girls take such stupid risks if we told them THEY were going to be held responsible for their actions rather than some faceless (but, presumably, deep-pocketed) people they assume ought to protect them from themselves?

It depends on (1) how responsible you think 15 year olds are, i.e., how able they are to understand the incentive and adjust their behavior accordingly; and (2) who is in the best position to prevent problems like this from arising.

As for #2, we generally focus on the criminal rather than the victim. The Padres and the airline are, obviously, different. However, given the number of complaints about the behavior of athletes, it might not be too much to expect some supervision by team officials when the team is together in a public place.

Wouldn't fewer teenage girls take such stupid risks if we told them THEY were going to be held responsible for their actions rather than some faceless (but, presumably, deep-pocketed) people they assume ought to protect them from themselves?

The point is that 15 year old girls aren't capable of weighing these risks and the onus is on the adult to make sure the 15 year old girl doesn't have to make these decisions. Given the self esteem of an average 15 year old girl, I'd guess manipulating them is not that difficult, and therefore, the law accounts for that.

Of course, the law won't always make sense? I've seen Thirteen.....

Your points re the Padres and Qantas are excellent, though. Still, is a 15 year old girl ever going to think "hey, I guess I'll go into the bathroom since whatever happens to me will be the airline's or team's fault." That is quite a stretch.

Bad Quagmeyer!! Don't even think about it...

Wouldn't it actually be a safer world for teenage girls if the law said, "by the age of 15, girls should know that going into an airplane lav with an adult male is not a good idea, and if you nevertheless take the risk of doing so, you're not entitled to monetary damages if something bad happens."

If we generally thought 15-year-olds were equipped to make wise decisions about sexual contact with adults, we probably wouldn't have age-of-consent laws that include 15-year-olds in the first place.

In other words, age-of-consent laws exist at least partially to protect minors from making "decisions" they aren't really ready to make. So, when one of them proves that, we're gonna yank the protection away? Odd.

Fill in the Luis Polonia joke of your choice.

But to say that they should be held responsible for a players in a private or public setting (they paid for a ticket they did not charter the plane) is really asking too much.

Just to be clear, I'm not definitely advocating liability for the Padres. I'm saying we shouldn't rule it out.

I don't know the exact circumstances of this flight. Suppose, however, that the Padres were traveling with a bunch of young (18-19 year old) players. Though these players are technically adults, I could see the Padres being required to exercise some supervision over them.

Even if the players were mostly older, I'd still expect team management to keep an eye on the younger ones. It isn't that hard, especially in the confined setting of an airplane.

As for the airline, does anyone suspect that alcohol was involved (phrase used intentionally)?

But to say that they should be held responsible for a players in a private or public setting (they paid for a ticket they did not charter the plane) is really asking too much.

Just to be clear, I'm not definitely advocating liability for the Padres. I'm saying we shouldn't rule it out.

I don't know the exact circumstances of this flight. Suppose, however, that the Padres were traveling with a bunch of young (18-19 year old) players. Though these players are technically adults, I could see the Padres being required to exercise some supervision over them.

Even if the players were mostly older, I'd still expect team management to keep an eye on the younger ones. It isn't that hard, especially in the confined setting of an airplane.

As for the airline, does anyone suspect that alcohol was involved (phrase used intentionally)?

Sorry about the double post. I swear I didn't do it.

This point IS NOT ABOUT AGE OF CONSENT LAWS, OR CYR'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATING THEM. Are people being deliberately obtuse?

The reason is that you keep talking about the responsibility of the girl. This makes it seem like you are bringing that back into the issue. What you should instead be discussing is the lack of duty by the team/airline. From a legal point of view, the issue would go like this:

1. Do the Padres owe a duty to the girl?

2. Did they breach that duty?

3. Assuming yes answers to 1 and 2, are the Padres nevertheless absolved because the girl should have understood the risk and avoided it?

By jumping to #3, you're seeming to focus on an issue that's different from what I gather is your real point.

Sorry about the double post. I swear I didn't do it.

This point IS NOT ABOUT AGE OF CONSENT LAWS, OR CYR'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATING THEM. Are people being deliberately obtuse?

The reason is that you keep talking about the responsibility of the girl. This makes it seem like you are bringing that back into the issue. What you should instead be discussing is the lack of duty by the team/airline. From a legal point of view, the issue would go like this:

1. Do the Padres owe a duty to the girl?

2. Did they breach that duty?

3. Assuming yes answers to 1 and 2, are the Padres nevertheless absolved because the girl should have understood the risk and avoided it?

By jumping to #3, you're seeming to focus on an issue that's different from what I gather is your real point.

LT, nobody's being deliberately obtuse. You said:

Wouldn't it actually be a safer world for teenage girls if the law said, "by the age of 15, girls should know that going into an airplane lav with an adult male is not a good idea, and if you nevertheless take the risk of doing so, you're not entitled to monetary damages if something bad happens." Wouldn't fewer teenage girls take such stupid risks if we told them THEY were going to be held responsible for their actions rather than some faceless (but, presumably, deep-pocketed) people they assume ought to protect them from themselves?

The point is a 15 year old girl would not have the capacity to weigh the risks you're wanting them to weigh. You're saying the law should require them to assume the risk, but they may or may not be capable of assuming the risk. Your statement is not solely about the liability of deep pockets because you're saying the 15 year old girl would never be entitled to monetary damages if she does assume the risk of going to the john with an adult and something bad happens.

Although I do not have a daughter, I imagine telling a toddler to stay away from strangers carries more weight than telling a 15 year old girl the same. After all, they think they know everything.

All this reminds me of Mark Chmura.

Mark Field, what are you doing in this thread? I'm not paying you to sit around talking about legal theory. There must be a thread in here with my honor at stake.

Are you the biggest idiot ever?

LOL, Barry. No one has (yet) accused you of molesting 15 year old girls.

The respondeat superior issue gets complicated and contentious when it comes to criminal conduct by the employee. My own conclusion, after researching it in depth a few years ago, was that the company can be liable. It depends on the specific circumstances.

FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Senor Guapo's understanding of "scope of employment." It isn't enough that Cyr worked for the Padres. It probably isn't enough that the Padres paid for his plane ticket. What matters is if Cyr's interaction with this girl had anything to do with his job duties. If, for instance, Cyr was a scout, recruiting a HS prospect and entertaining the family, perhaps that would fall within a respondeat superior action.

"I think its bad law myself, but it does appear to be the law."

. . . in the Third District Court of Appeals in Louisiana, unless it's been overturned. If I were the Padres, I'd take my chances, but either way, it's still a highly fact-intensive inquiry and usually not something conducive to a flat rule.

what's up sexy, you are very cut it is bad that you are 15 the law is very strick about that kind of stuff but I may have to do an execption this time

Seriously, am I the only one who reads this and just melts?

Maybe she wasn't accepting his advances, but rather she was going to the lavatory to treat her cuts, and he just happened to be in there. I think he duped her into going into the bathroom by telling her she was cut. The man's a genius.

I was just googling for Cyr information and came up with a primer football discussion (homepage). Made me sad because it was mostly about how the 2001 Rams were unstoppable. They got stopped and I was sad.

I read Cyr's note to mean the girl was in great physical shape -- cut. No [sic] needed.

----------------------------------------

QANTAS - Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service

This wouldn't have happened if there was a salary cap!

The fact that she was 15 is a factor in considering her responsibility, but on the tort side (as opposed to the criminal side) it is not dispositive. Minors do not get a completely free ride here.

Statutory Rape is pretty much a strict liability crime -- it doesn't matter if she looks 18, if she says she's 18, if she shows you an phony ID that says 18 -- criminal liability applies.

In some cases the law draws these bright lines, to make things easier. So it is with contracts for a minor -- under 18, it is voidable (but not void).

But for civil liability, you look at all of the factors, including what a reasonable 15 year old, in her situation, should or should not know. You don't just say, she's 15 and therefore has no responsibility at all for her actions.

Now, as regards Mr. Cyr, that is irrelevant -- the tort against him is an intentional tort, and defenses such as "she should know better" do not apply.

But for Qantas, the tort is negligent failure to protect, and the extent of her own culpability could have an effect in lowering any recovery under comparative negligence principles. In some states, it would remove it entirely if they felt she was more than 50% responsible. You should also be aware that in some states they have abolished joint and several liability for certain types of torts.

Finally, I agree that respondeat superior is very hard to establish for an intentional tort like this.

What do you think you are, Srul, some kind of lawyer or something?

But seriously, I think it's pretty unreasonable to ask QANTAS to police what goes on in a 747 on a 13 hour overnight flight. Having taken those flights myself, I know that once the lights are down the flight attendants are off and hidden away and they don't walk around checking up on people. Unless she had been dragged screaming into the bathroom, there is no way they could have known what happened. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to do things differently.

I know there are regulations about how unaccompanied minors are handled on flights, and I have no idea how that applies to 15 year-olds. I would imagine that laws and regulations on this will play into it.

many states now recognize a reasonable mistake of age defense

I have not practiced criminal law in a long time. I know this is not the case in Hawaii. What states recognize this defense?

I love rutabaga!

I am a non-practicing lawyer and I would doubt that any states recognize a good-faith beleif that a person is overage as a defense to "statutory rape." If there are states that do, it has to be a very small number. For child pornography, that may be a different story...

I started researching this. Apparently, Missouri is a state that has codified the defense for age 17, but not age 13:

Mistake as to incapacity or age.

566.020. 1. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a victim's being incapacitated, no crime is committed if the actor reasonably believed that the victim was not incapacitated and reasonably believed that the victim consented to the act. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of belief as to capacity and consent.

2. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being thirteen years of age or younger, it is no defense that the defendant believed the child to be older.

3. Whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends upon a child being under seventeen years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed that the child was seventeen years of age or older.

I just did a quick Westlaw search on all statutes (I have a flat rate plan), and I have found similar laws in other states. There are quite a few variations on the theme. Examples:

Arkansas:

(b) When the criminality of conduct depends on a child's being below the age of fourteen (14) years and the actor is twenty (20) years of age or older, it is no defense that the actor did not know the age of the child or reasonably believed the child to be fourteen (14) years of age or older.

BTW MGL -- I have the greatest respect for your work on this site. But when somebody suggests that there has been a change in the law that sounds ridiculous to you, don't be so fast to say that you doubt it. Given what I have seen, you should never be too sure that somewhere, one of the 50 state legislatures (cumulative motto: "We were the ones not smart enough to get elected to Congress, and you know how low that bar is") did not decide that, hey, maybe that would be a good idea.

And that does not even begin to consider what may crawl out of the hundreds of municipalities (cumulative motto: "We had nothing better to do that week, so we ran for City Council").

Srul, I was basically wrong, but where did I say that "it was ridiculous?"

In fact, If your search uncovered all the states that have an affirmative defense of "mistaken belief, etc.," then the second part of my post was exactly right! Geez, re-read my post!

I am a non-practicing lawyer and I would doubt that any states recognize a good-faith belief that a person is overage as a defense to "statutory rape." If there are states that do, it has to be a very small number. For child pornography, that may be a different story...

And BTW, there is a HUGE difference between saying that I "doubt" something is true (usually off the top of my head) and saying that I "know" something is true! I am going to be wrong plenty of times with the former (10%) and rarely with the latter (1%)! :)

Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Me.

Chill,MGL. I swear, eveyone on this site is getting SOOOO Sensitive.

I swear, eveyone on this site is getting SOOOO Sensitive.

What the hell do you mean by that? Jerk.

:)

For those of an academic bent but who do not have access to ALR, here is an excerpt from the ALR article. The 2/5 estimate looks to be about right:

In People v Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal 2d 529, 39 Cal Rptr 361, 393 P2d 673, 8 ALR3d 1092, the California Supreme Court broke with precedent and held that a good-faith and reasonable belief that a victim, here a woman, was over the age of consent and had voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse was a defense to the offense of statutory rape.

And if her abs were visible, that heightens her irresponsibility.

That's crap. If her abs were visible, that means she probably wanted people to look at them. (Other possibilities exist.) It doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex with strangers. More importantly, it doesn't mean that she is in any way responsible if some stranger decides to force sex on her.

Anyone who believes that how a girl or a woman dresses gives men the right to have sex with her should stay in a very small room away from the rest of us.