Singer Patti Labelle Settles Personal Injury Lawsuit
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Sep 6, 2012
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
Patti Labelle settled a lawsuit against her by paying $100,000 this week. The R&B diva was sued for her behavior in an argument between a mother of an 18 month old child who was, apparently, acting too unruly for Ms. Labelle’s tastes. The singer, living in New York while she appeared in the Broadway production of “Fela!,” allegedly shouted curses at the mother and hurled a water bottle at towards the child in an effort to keep the infant quiet. The incident occurred in November of 2010 in the lobby of the apartment building where the mother and her daughter live, and where Ms. Labelle was staying for the duration of her performance.
While most personal injury cases allege the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff to suffer a harm, there are many cases, like this one, which instead arise from intentional misbehavior. Intentional tort lawsuits arise when a defendant has committed an act that has intended to harm a plaintiff, such as assault or battery. Unlike a negligence case which requires a plaintiff to prove a breach of a duty that the defendant owed the plaintiff, an intentional tort case will depend on the plaintiff’s ability to prove that the defendant’s intentional acts caused them harm. Proving this will often come down to evidence that supports the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant committed the action alleged. In this respect, lawsuits over intentional acts are similar to criminal prosecutions, however, the burden of proof is much lower for plaintiffs in civil suits than it is for state prosecutors.
In a criminal prosecution, the state must demonstrate that the defendant committed the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. This means that if the jury has any cause to doubt the defendant’s guilt, then they should acquit. However, in a civil lawsuit, a plaintiff only needs to show that it is more than likely the defendant committed the act that injured the plaintiff. This standard is much lower, and leaves room for a judge or a jury to doubt the defendant’s involvement, but still find for the plaintiff. You may remember OJ Simpson being acquitted for murder, but being forced to pay a significant judgment to the families of Rondald Goldman and Nicole Brown because he lost a wrongful death civil suit that essentially levied the same accusations against him. In that case, the jury in the criminal case could not find evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil jury could find that it was more than likely that OJ caused the harm suffered by the family of his alleged victims.
In Patti Labelle’s case, it was likely very easy for the plaintiffs to demonstrate that Ms. Labelle committed the acts in question. The only real dispute would likely arise over how much compensation the mother and daughter were owed, and there was very little chance of a trial from the outset. Over a series of negotiations, the parties were able to settle on an award of $100,000 as compensation and close the matter.
Intentional tort cases like this one are common, and often proceed well after the defendant is tried in a criminal court. If you are the victim of a crime, consult with an experienced personal injury attorney and make sure you pursue the proper civil action to get compensation you deserve.