I'm not a lawyer,

[Mendocino]

can Trump be tried for negligence or some similar crime for the death in the fire at Trump tower?

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Neither am I. What I know is his company (if his company is the landlord, so to speak)

can be sued for wrongful death, negligence.

Civil, vs criminal.

Hit him where it hurts, in his blood money pocketbook.

[beachbum bob]

2. whats the negligence? Fires happen.

a building owner has limited responsibility as long as fire exits are properly located and construction methods met code. Sprinklers are not a code requirement...and really they are to save the property, not people's lives

[PJMcK]

3. I'm not a lawyer, either

But think it would be unlikely that Trump would be personally liable. The building is probably owned by an LLC or similar legal construct in order to shield the underlying owners (Trump) from any personal responsibilities.

Trump's whole business is structured with lots of shell companies. It's been part of his hide-the-money scheme.

[OnDoutside]

4. This thread is like an episode of the Simpsons.....I'm not a lawyer, but....

[treestar]

5. Trumpco probably can

If the sprinklers are not required by ordinance, that does not settle it for once and for all. It still could be negligent not to install them (or something else). They would have to prove notice of a dangerous condition and that might not be out of the question.

[Xolodno]

7. I work in the insurance industry...but not a lawyer...

...however, guarantee you the insurance company is already trying to settle this. Landlords, HOA's, etc. are liable and can be sued. There probably won't be criminal negligence, chances are, Dump complied, although minimum, with New York City and State building codes.

It's only criminal if he doesn't comply, but that would never get past inspection and given the ok to sell or lease the apartment. The other way its criminal, he essentially uninstalls or neglects the safety measures...but again, unlikely. Large office buildings usually get inspected at regular intervals.

Dump will see an insurance rate hike...and bitch and moan about it.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Bulletin:

Link to tweet

[Nevernose]

9. I could see a lawsuit

He lobbied against installing fire sprinklers in older buildings, but voluntarily added them in a building across from the UN that didn’t legally require them, despite the expense. It could be argued that he therefore knew the risks, because he voluntarily admitted and rectified the risks at one location (even though not legally required) and not the other location.

I don’t know how successful the argument would be, but against someone who wasn’t famous, that’s what I’d see as the best shot at a civil lawsuit.

[EffieBlack]

12. That would be a difficult argument unless they could prove that both buildins

faced identical risks, that he knew it and failed to guard against them - and even then, that would be a stretch.

[Nevernose]

13. Agreed. It would require a lot of things falling into place

The right lawyer suing, the wrong lawyer working for the insurance company, a judge not particularly sharp, and the correct jury.

It might be enough of a stretch to get an insurance payout, but money is little comfort to the people missing their loved one.

[EffieBlack]

10. Depends on what his "duty of reasonable care was"

And usually, in situations like this, unless there are extenuating circumstances, it doesn't go beyond what is required by law.

[Gothmog]

11. He can be impeached for negligence according to one of my friends

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210175744