Talk:Wrongful death

Untitled

I am somewhat confused by the assertion that a tort must be rooted in common law as opposed to statute. This is the first time that I have read such a claim. PhatJew 10:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"if not from commmon law must be construed strictly" is basic tenet - not fair or moral but thats how those lawyers play — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatic win by Plaintiff

I am somwhat confused by the folowing:

"Unlike most criminal law cases, private parties bring the suit. In principle, the defendant can refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination but if a defendant invokes this right, the defendant has presented no case and the plaintiff automatically wins the case."

Can someone please provide a citation for this, and preferrably an explanation. Surely a Defendant can refuse to testify, by invoking their right not to self-incriminate depending upon the jurisdiction in question, but still present a defense. Their defense could involve calling their own witnesses; presenting arguments to the trier of fact; and cross-examing the witnesses of the plaintiff, whom with the burden of proof would usually lie. -Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 15:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Murder and wrongful death claims

This article needs to clarify whether intentional murder can be the subject of a wrongful death claim.

This link states: "Wrongful death" is a type of lawsuit which alleges that the victim died or was killed as a result of negligence, malpractice or other acts committed by another party (called the defendant), except for intent to commit murder.

The bolded text above would seem to exclude murder but since O.J. Simpson was sued using a wrongful death claim for allegedly murdering two people how is that possible? --Cab88 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Corpse Justice

The article says that 'under common law, a dead person cannot bring a lawsuit...'.

Surely under any law the dead person is at a very considerable disadvantage, so perhaps that needs to be rephrased? I don't feel qualified. --bodnotbod 23:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

another weak article by wiki

no mention of lineal descendants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Farris vs voss

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Case No. 1:22-cv-000249 APPEAL NO.24-5763

KIMBERLY RENEE FARRIS, Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW WARREN VOSS, et al., Defendants.

APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, the Appellant,Kimberly Renee Farris, and respectfully submits this brief in support of the appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, which dismissed the case on the grounds of no material fact and a matter of law.

I. INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises from a case involving serious allegations against multiple law enforcement officers, including Andrew Warren Voss, Rick Cook, Mark Miller, Brevin Cameron, and Shane Rominger. The original case was dismissed without a thorough examination of the evidence, particularly the body camera footage that is crucial to understanding the events that transpired.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Appellant alleges that on 10/01/2021 , multiple officers, including those named above, were involved in an incident that resulted in severe harm to the Appellant's son./death. 2. The Appellant's attorney filed a lawsuit only against Officer Voss, despite the involvement of four officers in the incident. 3. The attorney conducted a discovery meeting without the Appellant's knowledge and informed the Appellant that there was no body camera footage available. The attorney subsequently withdrew from the case, leaving the Appellant without representation. 4. By the time the Appellant was able to access the body camera footage, the discovery period had ended, and the Appellant lacked the knowledge and resources to present the evidence effectively. 5. The Appellant's son was treated in a manner that was both distressing and unacceptable, as evidenced by the footage that the Appellant has since reviewed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Improper Dismissal of the Case

The district court's dismissal of the case was improper as it failed to consider the existence of material facts that could substantiate the Appellant's claims. The body camera footage, which the Appellant has since reviewed, reveals the distressing treatment of the Appellant's son, including his cries for help.

B. Ineffective Legal Representation

The Appellant's previous attorney did not adequately represent the Appellant's interests, failing to file against all responsible parties and neglecting to pursue critical evidence. This lack of representation has severely impacted the Appellant's ability to seek justice.

C. Emotional and Psychological Impact

The treatment of the Appellant's son and the subsequent events have caused significant emotional distress to the Appellant. The inability to see the Appellant's son in the hospital and the circumstances surrounding his death have left lasting scars.

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Reverse the district court's dismissal of the case. 2. Allow the Appellant to present the body camera footage and any other relevant evidence. 3. Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

V. CONCLUSION

The Appellant has made significant efforts to navigate the legal system despite a lack of formal education and legal representation. The evidence in this case warrants a thorough examination, and the Appellant seeks the Court's assistance in achieving justice for the wrongful treatment of the Appellant's son.

Respectfully submitted,

Kimberly Renee Farris 37338

Dec 19. 2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all parties of record via [method of service] on this [date]. Kimberly Renee Farris Kimberly Renee Farris Grieving Mother (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)