TheSpoiler
Member
The victim, known in court papers as Jane Doe, sued Fogle earlier this year for $150,000 in damages related to his crimes.
She was one of several minors who were secretly video-taped undressing and bathing in the home of Russell Taylor, Fogle's business partner at the time.
Fogle pleaded guilty last year to viewing the tapes that were recorded in Taylor's home. He was later convicted and sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for having sex with minors and receiving and distributing child pornography. He's serving out his sentence at a federal penitentiary in Colorado.
In his latest court filing, however, Fogle claims that Jane Doe was suffering from depression and that she abused alcohol and drugs, as well as engaged in sex with "multiple partners" long before she knew about Fogle's crimes.
In the filing, he claims that her parents, named in the documents as "J.T. and B.T.," failed to properly supervise her.
He also accused them of inflicting emotional distress because of a messy divorce and "abusive relationship."
"The outrageous and reckless conduct of J.T. and B.T. committed over a period of several years inflicted personal injuries, emotional distress and psychological injury on Jane Doe from which she will continue to suffer," the document states. "B.T. and J.T., by their actions, caused Jane Doe to suffer from emotional distress and depression which then resulted in Jane Doe engaging in destructive behaviors, including, but not limited to alcohol abuse, substance abuse, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation with regard to which B.T. and J.T. are liable."
More at the link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-subway-pitchman-jared-fogle-211831528.html
Sue me if old.
Edit: mre clarifies why he's suing.
People get so emotional over court filings. He's not saying any of this with his filings. Essentially, he's saying that at least some part of her alleged injuries ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") are attributable to the parent's actions/inactions, and that in order for the claims to be completely satisfied, the parents must be joined as defendants. However, his angle in this is not to protect her interests, but to protect his own. Assuming his allegations are true, arguendo, then the parents would be in some part responsible for the injuries alleged in the complaint ("severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish") and the amount of money he would owe would be reduced.
To use a non-pedophile example, say you're hit by a car driven by John Smith on Monday and you break your arm, and then on Tuesday you're hit by a car driven by Suzie Brown and you break your leg. If you sue only Suzie Brown for your injuries, she can bring John Smith into the litigation as he bears responsibility for part of your injuries as well, and (look at the rule below) not having John Smith be party to the lawsuit means that you would "leave an existing party (Suzie Brown) subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations (i.e., paying for the medical bills related to your broken arm) because of [not also suing John Smith]."
Fogle's saying that, assuming a jury finds he caused the plaintiff "severe, traumatic and permanent injuries and mental anguish," he wasn't the only one who did so, and that her parents contributed to part of those injuries and should therefore be held legally and, more importantly, financially responsible for compensating her for those injuries.
This hasn't been a commentary on the merits of this filing, just trying to explain what's going on from a legal perspective.
Here's the relevant federal rule (FRCP 19):