Appalling Spectacle of Victim Suing Victim

Tragedies bring out the best in people. When an angry man crashed a plane into the offices of the Internal Revenue Service in Northwest Austin, many people responded heroically, such as the glass company employee who used his ladder to rescue people and the county fire departments who were first on the scene. However, tragedy can also bring out the worst in people, as evidenced by the lawsuit brought by Valerie Hunter against Sheryl Mann Stack, Case No. D-1-GN-10-000559 in the District Court of Travis County, Texas.

You would think that Valerie Hunter and Sheryl Stack would have a lot in common. Both lost their husbands on February 18, 2010. On that day, Andrew Joseph Stack, III burned down his own house and then crashed his plane into the offices of the Internal Revenue Service. His grievances were somewhere between borderline and ridiculous. Both women were directly affected by the misguided acts of Andrew Joseph Stack, III. However, in the bizarre world of insurance coverage and litigation, Sheryl Stack now finds herself being sued for failure to prevent an insane act.

According to the allegations of the Original Petition filed on February 22, 2010, some four days after the tragedy:

Defendant Stack was threatened enough by Joseph Stack that she took her daughter and stayed at a hotel the night before the plane crash. Defendant Stack owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to others including the decedent. Defendant Stack breached that duty resulting in the death of Vernon Hunter. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, exemplary damages, interest and court costs.

Let's summarize here. The lawsuit claims that just because a woman had enough sense to take her daughter away from a threatening situation but did not stop him from carrying out his ultimate plan, she is just as responsible as the crazed pilot.

This is insane on two levels. On a strictly legal level, the law of negligence is based on the existence of a duty and the foreseeability of harm. If you drive a car, you have a duty to exercise reasonable care not to crash into someone else. If you drive drunk, it is foreseeable that your judgment might be impaired to the point where you injured someone. Applying that standard to the present case, if you are fearful for the safety of yourself and your child, does that mean that you have a duty to prevent your husband from committing an act of terrorism against someeone you have never met? It seems a stretch. If you are afraid that your husband might hurt you or your child, should you be expected to know that he would take off in an airplane and attack a governmental office? Again, it seems a mighty stretch.

This is troubling on a moral level as well. Sheryl Stack is being sued for failure to prevent an insane act. Why? Insurance policies do not provide coverage for intentional, criminal acts. However, they often cover negligent acts. Thus, by accusing the widow of negligently failing to stop her husband, Valerie Hunter has a possibility of making an insurance company pay for her loss. Of course, to do that, she must accuse a fellow widow of culpability. Putting it bluntly, Valerie Hunter is seeking to blame Sheryl Stack so that she can get a payoff from an insurance company. That is just wrong.

The loss that Valerie Hunter suffered cannot be calculated. Her husband was a good man. He died a hero. However, heroes, or the families of heroes, shouldn't beat up on other victims. By seeking to profit from her husband's death, Valerie Hunter cheapens his sacrifice. She also seeks to punish a woman who did the right thing. Sheryl Stack got her daughter and herself out of harm's way. Sheryl Stack should be commended for recognizing a clear and present danger. However, she should not be punished for failing to anticipate an unthinkable act against someone she had never met. This lawsuit is disturbing in its cold pursuit of insurance company dollars despite the human cost. Two women who should be united in a common tragedy are now cast as adversaries. That is wrong.