Lawyer Nguyen Thanh Ha - Chairman of SBLAW, Hanoi Bar Association - after consulting with a fellow lawyer in the US, said that the plaintiff (singer Dam Vinh Hung) has a very high chance of winning the case.
Mr. Ha said that, according to common law, anyone has a “duty of care” towards others and also a “duty of warning” about possible dangers.
Besides, because Mr. Williams invited Dam Vinh Hung as a guest, Mr. Williams has a higher obligation to ensure the safety of the guest.
This includes maintaining the property in a safe condition, conducting regular inspections and warning guests of any dangers that Mr Williams knew or should have known about. Mr Williams appears to have breached these obligations.
Lawyer Nguyen Van Hau - Vice Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association - also said that in the case of organizing a party with many attendees, the party host is responsible for ensuring the safety of all guests and related people within the scope of the party.
Existing objects at the venue will be assessed as a source of danger. When an object is a source of high danger, the host must take precautions throughout the event to ensure the safety of all those present at the venue. And the attendees are also responsible for operating within the scope permitted by the host.
If the party host can prove that he has taken the necessary steps to ensure safety and that the damage occurred due to the excessive behavior of the attendees, the party host will not be liable for compensation for any arising cases.
According to Attorney Ha, the Superior Court of California will be the place with jurisdiction to resolve the case, not the Supreme Court of California, because this is the highest court. The case should be brought to a local court, that is, the Superior Court has jurisdiction to resolve the case.
Regarding what elements and evidence are needed to prove the $15 million claim, attorney Ha said there are two aspects to consider. First, the plaintiff can claim damages, including mental anguish, hardship, loss of toe mobility, and actual medical expenses. These are not too difficult to prove. However, the amount will not reach $15 million.
Additionally, the plaintiff may seek punitive damages. Punitive damages are a form of “social punishment,” and they can be very large. If Mr. Williams’s conduct was so egregious that society felt it was necessary to impose a severe punishment to deter him, then punitive damages would be awarded.
In US lawsuits involving large sums of money, punitive damages are often much larger than actual damages. To achieve this, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent and egregious.
According to Lawyer Nguyen Van Hau, in the clips of the time of the accident, it can be seen that singer Dam Vinh Hung climbed up the fountain himself during the party. Therefore, if Mr. Gerard Richard Williams and his wife can prove that they have fully implemented the safety work for the fountain and clearly determined that this fountain is not for standing up to perform like singer Dam Vinh Hung did, then Mr. Gerard Richard Williams and his wife do not have to pay compensation as requested by Dam Vinh Hung.
"Mr. Gerard Richard Williams and his wife can even sue singer Dam Vinh Hung and related individuals and organizations for damages for infringement of reputation because of the act of filing a lawsuit and posting it in the media without any basis for proof," said lawyer Hau.
