“In the damages part of the legal process, some defendants were still using the argument that a person could be responsible for their assault,” said one of the sponsors of the bill.
By Norah White
Legislators are discussing a new bill that would prohibit the blame of sexual assault survivors for their assault as a legal defense in civil cases.
Vermont is one of 33 states where those accused of wrongdoing in civil cases can deploy a defense claim called modified comparative negligence, which can allow defendants to limit how much money plaintiffs can win in a lawsuit. The idea is that plaintiffs can seek damages only if their share of responsibility falls under a certain bar, as determined in court — some states allow a plaintiff to win compensation only if they’re deemed less than 50% at fault in the incident, other states increase that bar to 51%.
For sexual assault survivors launching civil suits in Vermont against alleged offenders, that means they can be prevented from recovering damages if a judge or jury finds them more than 50% at fault.
“In other words, a plaintiff’s damages can get reduced by comparing their responsibility with the defendant … rather than the defendant’s responsibility with respect to the plan of injuries,” Celeste Laramie, an attorney speaking on behalf of the nonprofit Vermont Association for Justice, said at a Senate judicial committee meeting Feb 1.
Where comparative negligence claims make no sense is in sexual assault cases, Laramie said.
“In the damages part of the legal process, some defendants were still using the argument that a person could be responsible for their assault,” said Sen. Andrew Perchlik, D/P-Washington, one of the sponsors of the bill, S.278, in an interview.
If the bill becomes law, comparative negligence will be prohibited in all civil cases in which a defendant allegedly sexually assaulted the plaintiff.
“By applying comparative negligence to sexual assault cases, we tell sexual assault survivors that they bear some amount of responsibility to predict and therefore prevent their own sexual assault,” Laramie said in the Feb. 1 committee meeting.
At the same meeting, Zach Blondin, a sexual assault survivor, spoke about his experience being accused of partial negligence when he sued the Milton Town School District after he was sexual assaulted by football teammates in 2012.
“They took 40% of my allotted lawsuit away because they found me negligent,” Blondin said.
Supporters of the bill believe it’s damaging to a survivor to blame them for any part of their own assault.
“I don’t think, ever, is there a scenario where if you’re assaulted it’s because of the shirt you wore or the place you went to. It’s irrelevant,” Blondin said.
Blondin told legislators about how hurt he felt after that trial.
“There was this heavy weight of failure because I put myself here, then I started questioning all of my own doings,” Blondin said.
Supporters of the bill hope it would prevent an extra burden on survivors like Blondin as they navigate their recovery.
The Community News Service is a program in which University of Vermont students work with professional editors to provide content for local news outlets at no cost.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Court, Crime, Legislation
the victim becomes the victim again///
This is yet another First Amendment restriction on a courtroom defense banning “unpopular” tactics that no one dares oppose lest they be branded insensitive or misogynistic. This is similar to bans passed in some states precluding a claim of justified rage when criminal assault or murder charges are brought against someone who dates a person who then reveals they have “misrepresented” their gender. I say you should be able to use whatever defense which sways a jury, as long as there is no falsehood or perjury at play. This is political correctness now invading the sanctity of the criminal/civil courtroom.
Rich Lachapelle, EXACTLY!
She was drunk too, went back to his place, initiated physicality, but the next day… she regrets it and calls it assault. He now has no defense?
Vermont passed laws years ago regarding intimate contact with someone in a state of “diminished capacity” which assumes that an inebriated person is incapable of giving consent. You are correct…if the perpetrator knew that the victim was drunk, there is no defense.
Another bad law. What if they’re both drunk, like I posed above? The “perpetrator,” is often assumed to be the man, and only the man, and the only accountable party, when it fact it was 100% a mutually irresponsible situation. Pointing that out shouldn’t be forbidden in court.
Also, in cases where both were drunk, it is always the male/penis person/XY chromosome who is considered the assailant. Meanwhile, some states allow biological men to be incarcerated in women’s prison, based not on XY/penis status but on their feewings and psychology. There is no logic on the left.
Beat me to it. LOL. But there s a logic to it. There is a victim class and an oppressor class, based on immutable characteristics and established in a hierarchy of “intersectionalism.” Straight, white men are at the top of the “oppressor,” list and laws like the proposed seek to make sure they pay for it in court.
Rich Lachapelle, you are wrong. There IS logic. It seeks to overthrow culture and State.
S. Lowry. Exactly. “I was raped because I regretted it later.”
Unfortunately. Also when caught cheating. Once it happens to you, or your friends, commonly in a divorce, all good faith and trust is out the window. Women are perfectly capable of being as awful as the worst man.
This makes the assumption that women never use sex to get what they want.
Sex is power for women.
Money is power for men.
This is proven every second via culture and internet across the globe, it is a rather shallow take on human nature, but cannot be ignored.
It’s very base. Men and women want to love and be loved, to be admired and protected.
It will eventually all evolve back to the truth; sex is best left for marriage. Young men should be taught they are not “getting away” with something by having sex before marriage, despite what they think. They are being used.
Marriage, such as it currently exists, given the ease and rates of divorce, who files for them 70-80% of the time… the bias of family court, alimony and child support… Marriage isn’t any better for men as far as being used goes.
Because of the rewrite on our constitution, men should no longer be liable for child support in out of wed lock situations, it’s only a product of conception, there is no understanding that it’s a child. They should only be liable for removal.
The state should no longer be asked to support out of wedlock births as it’s completely the woman’s choice, it’s only a product of conception.
Then to make things equal, all divorces should be equalized on who gets custody and who pays child support. 50% of the men should have custody with women paying child support and 50% of women should have custody with men paying child support. It should be chosen by random number generator.
Suddenly sanity would creep back into life decisions. All by their fairness and desires, so there should be no complaining.
@Niel Yes, a proper reading of Vermont’s new amendment would certainly make it unconstitutional to force fatherhood onto an unwilling sperm donor by virtue of child support. In an equitable world, men could dispose of their responsibilities as easily as women, between abortion and safe haven laws. That’s why they left that “compelling state interest,” part in. The state not only doesn’t want to pay for unwanted children, but it gets a cut of the child support payments. State interest clearly established.
EXACTLY!
So now it becomes a race to declare victim status first? Fellas, I guess you better draft up proceedings after any consensual non-marital relations and keep an attorney on retainer, in case the other party starts to have regrets.
Too many incidents of women changing their minds the next morning to not have a Plan B ready.
Let us all just agree upon the idea that none of this is about love.
It’s about power, money and I’m not responsible for my actions, along with I want what a want and you’re going to have to pay for it.
There is a better plan, we just ignore it and won’t even allow it to be discussed.