Landmark Ruling: Lawsuit Against Michael Jackson’s Companies Given Green Light by Judge
In a groundbreaking decision, a US court has granted permission for Wade Robson and James Safechuck to revive their lawsuit against Michael Jackson’s companies. The ruling comes as Robson and Safechuck allege that they were sexually abused by the late pop icon during their childhood and that Jackson’s companies failed in their duty to protect them.
Robson and Safechuck claim that the abuse took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s while they were staying at Jackson’s famous Neverland ranch. Notably, Jackson’s legal team continues to assert his innocence, emphasizing that he was cleared of any wrongdoing in previous trials.
The allegations gained widespread attention with the release of the controversial 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, which the Jackson family fiercely criticized as a public lynching. Despite the criticism, the documentary shed light on Robson and Safechuck’s accounts, drawing attention to their accusations and reigniting the legal battle.
In 2020, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed James Safechuck’s lawsuit against Michael Jackson’s businesses, ruling that these companies did not owe Safechuck a duty of care. Similarly, in a separate case, the same judge ruled against Wade Robson. However, a recent development on Friday saw an appeals court in California challenge these rulings.
The appeals court’s verdict is a game-changer. It states that a corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse. The judgment further emphasizes the potential dangers of not imposing such a duty, stating, It would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder.
Consequently, the court overturned the previous judgments in favor of the corporations, opening the door for Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuit to move forward. This ruling sets a significant precedent, highlighting the responsibility of corporations to protect individuals from harm, even when owned by the alleged perpetrator.
The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for this case but also for similar cases involving allegations of abuse against powerful entities. As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how this landmark ruling will shape the outcome and potentially impact the legacy of one of pop music’s biggest icons.
