Kim Richards: No Escape from Witch Mountain

[msblossom]

I just think that the public tends to fill in the blanks and I'm not so sure that Kyle hasn't inflicted her own abuse upon Kim over the years and when the cameras aren't rolling. I get a biiiiiggggg feeling that Kyle has had her share of indefensible behavior towards Kim over the years and no I don't think it's acceptable because Kim's an addict. There's something about Kyle that makes me think of some disgruntled step parent from the Disney movies. Cinderella's step mom acting like putting a roof over her head makes her generous. Ms. Hannigan from Annie, because she's opened her home up to orphans they should be "grateful" I mean Kyle is far from that extreme and Kim is no Cinderella or Annie but it's that vibe that I get from these two. Kim gets that public tar and feathering but Kyle? Even though she gets put through the ringer publicly on occasion she still comes away smelling a lot less rotten than Kim does and I just can't help to feel like there's huge discrepancy between what Kim is supposed to answer for and explain and what Kyle has to answer for and explain. Addict or not Kyle's got some pretty nasty tendencies and behaviors of her own that shouldn't be shrugged off just because she happens to NOT be an addict. Ugly is ugly.

I think my biggest thing is I don't really believe Kyle is this way as a result of Kim's addicitons. I think Kyle's AND Kim's issues stemmed from the same dysfunction and manifested in there own ways and I don't think it's fair to put all of that on Kim. Kyle's unhappiness isn't a direct result from Kim fucking up Kyle's life. Kyle's issues stem from a fucked up family life growing up and Kim's issues stem from that as well. They both inflict pain upon each other through their acquired dysfunction and I think it's unfair for either of them to resent the other because of it. I think that's the prison that they are both trapped in. They've let their resentments get away from them and they've forgotten that neither one of them created the issues that caused their individual demons but over the years they've participated in providing fuel that allowed those demons to grow. I think they resent THAT part of each other. The parts that allowed the other to keep feeding the demons instead of working together to banish them forever. They do go on about failing each other. They just haven't figured out the formula and as self centered as they both are they never will understand there can actually be a solution.

A lot of things don't add up right to me but doesn't get proper attention because everything is all so caught up in the fact that Kims an addict and every disagreement or discussion or confrontation is steered down that path. I'm sooooo curious about the ins and outs of their relationship over the years.

And to this I say, Zzzz. I couldn't care less about the ins/outs of their relationship over the years. We've scratched the surface of that big mound of dysfunction for 5 seasons and I for one have had enough. It's tedious and boring, imo.

And as to Kyle's share of the blame and her behavior, she's no innocent and she certainly brings her own level of bitchiness without the benefit(?) of being an alcoholic, but even with all of that her level of repugnancy doesn't come close to Kim's by a mile. Or ten or twelve.

Edited March 28, 2015 by msblossom

[ryebread]

We've scratched the surface of that big mound of dysfunction for 5 seasons and I for one have had enough. It's tedious and boring, imo.

 

I've had enough of both Richards sisters.  But especially Kim.  She brings out the ugly in everything and everybody.  Mean people suck.

[GreatKazu]

 

I just think that the public tends to fill in the blanks and I'm not so sure that Kyle hasn't inflicted her own abuse upon Kim over the years and when the cameras aren't rolling. I get a biiiiiggggg feeling that Kyle has had her share of indefensible behavior towards Kim over the years and no I don't think it's acceptable because Kim's an addict.

*looking around* I don't recall anyone posting that it was acceptable.

 

 

I think Kyle's AND Kim's issues stemmed from the same dysfunction and manifested in there own ways and I don't think it's fair to put all of that on Kim.

Except, Kim is the one who is the addict and she is the one who is refusing post-rehab therapy/counseling. It is her behavior that is causing chaos in her home and affecting others. Going by her words, her lack of sobriety caused her to neglect her own children for 20 years. I am not sure how anyone else is responsible for Kim's failures. As has been posted many times here in CAPS - Kyle is responsible for herself and Kim is responsible for herself. Kyle cannot force Kim to change or get help no more than Kim can get her sister to change her attitude towards her. Sure they are not responsible for the actions of the adults in their home growing up, but they each are adult women and one of them has turned to an addict to deal with her pain.

 

 

They both inflict pain upon each other through their acquired dysfunction and I think it's unfair for either of them to resent the other because of it. I think that's the prison that they are both trapped in.

Agree. Very rarely will anyone who deals with an addict, not have some sort of resentment towards that person. It is not the illness, but their actions that they resent. Kyle then reacts to Kim's behavior that is not always appropriate and that in turn causes Kim to have her own resentments towards her sister.

 

 

They just haven't figured out the formula and as self centered as they both are they never will understand there can actually be a solution.

Kyle mentioned on WWHL that she has tried to get Kim into therapy, but Kim is resistant. There is a reason why Kim doesn't want to face her demons, but until she does, her sobriety will likely be a failure time and time again. Something happened so long ago to Kim, and likely Kyle was caught up in that as well depending on how the family dynamic was in that home, but whatever happened, Kim became a fractured soul and turned to alcohol and other methods to numb her pain.

Edited March 28, 2015 by GreatKazu

[zoeysmom]

Kim's complaints about her mom center around the notion that because she was child star she missed out in life by not riding a school bus.  When Kim turned 16 she had the choice to continue to go to school in which she was enrolled and chose not to, she dropped out.  If you asked 5,000 14 year olds if they would rather be working in Hollywood and living the good life or riding a school bus I am quite certain they would rather be in Hollywood.  As a child actor she didn't work harder than a school age child attending school she just worked different.  I am fond of saying Kim and Kyle weren't out in the fields chopping cotton they had a pretty posh little environment and their mother was with them 100% of the time or grandma if both she and Kyle were working-it is the law. 

 

Their mother was very instrumental in their lives, the girls even as adults talked to their mother every day and they valued her opinion.  You don't hear the daughters complaining about their upbringing, you read about others claiming their upbringing should have been different. 

 

I don't blame either of them for not wanting to undergo therapy or counseling as I believe Kim will be disappointed if she doesn't get the desired result from Kyle.  I just see it creating a bigger divide between the two.  Kim wants a fresh slate but still reserves the right to bring up her distorted images of the past.

[talula]

‘RHOBH’ Secrets Exposed: Kim Richards’ Dog Bite Victim Demands Copy Of Her Bravo Contract As Court Case Continues

Posted on Mar 23, 2015 @ 4:17AM

 

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/03/kim-richards-dog-bite-victim-fires-back-bravo-motion-dismiss/

 

-excerpt
Kim Richards’ dog attack victim, 80-year-old family friend Kay Rozario, is not backing down in her fight against the reality star. After dragging both Bravo and RHOBH producers Evolution Media into the nasty lawsuit, RadarOnline.com has learned she is now demanding copies of Richards’ Real Housewives of Beverly Hills contract as part of the court proceedings!

-read the document here

 

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/kim-richards-pitbull-doc-1.pdf

 

 

 

 

ELLEN CATHERINE ROZARIO, an ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-09540 AB (APRx)
Individual, )
)
v. )
) PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
KIM RICHARDS, ) AND AUTHORITIES IN
EVOLUTION FILM & TAPE, INC., a) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
California Corporation, and DOES ) MOTION TO DISMISS
1 through 5, inclusive, )COMPLAINT (FED. R. CIV. P.
) 12(b)(6)
)
) Hearing Date. April 6, 2015
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 4 (Spring Street)
Trial Date: None set

[BlackMamba]

I have no doubts that even if Kim was never an addict that these 2 would still have issues. They have both spoken about physical fights they had when Kyle was a preteen and Kim was an older teenager. I suspect that Kim was correct that Kyle had it easier in the home, chore wise, most babies of the family do. LOL Yes, I agree that they had issues prior to Kim's addictions but IMO, those addictions greatly magnified those issues into what we see today. I don't think we can get an honest appraisal of who Kyle as long as Kim is on the show, I do think we have seen the real Kim though. Clean/sober or high/drunk, she, Kim, is not a nice person and I give Kyle more slack than Kim because of it.

Or based off what we've seen on the show alot this season with Kim's own mean girl-like ways and how she talks to Kyle, she probably also bullied Kyle or provoked her which lead to these fights. Kyle doesn't take kindly to Kim's bullshit and hitting her with low blows (ie - the limo ride from season 1 where Kim accused Kyle of stealing that house which only provoked a reaction in Kyle that almost lead to violence). Kim is 5 years older than Kyle I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Kim was some kind of enforcer and Kyle was probably raised into Big Kathy's "princess" which might have also ruffled Kimmie's feathers since she viewed herself as the breadwinner of their family.

Edited March 29, 2015 by BlackMamba

[Wings]

We are way past dead horse territory but I will add something anyway!  LOL!

 

Emergency Rooms are required to report dog bites to animal control.  If the patient refuses to name the dog and owner their hands are tied.  I suspect Kyle refused to sign the form.  BUT, you would have to be living under a rock not to know at least one person in that ER who could identify Kyle and know the dog.  Not sure it would matter though.  

 

I would like to hear what Alexia says happened but I know Kyle will keep her out of it.  

 

Kim probably said Kingsley was resting in the bedroom, don't go in there and disturb him.  That just sounds like nutty dog owner being silly. I can see Alexia not registering danger.  

[rehoboth]

Didn't Brandi also say that Kyle has done a few nice things for her that she appreciated? Being the first to reach out after tampon string gate? She also said something about being able to drop her boys off at Kyle's a few times when she needed to? Did I imagine that? I'm honestly not sure. 

 

Brandi stated (somewhere?) that she appreciated it when her babysitter flaked out a couple of times and Kyle volunteered to keep her boys at her house.  Translated through the Brandi-speak decoder:  Brandi flagged down a guy walking by her front window and offered him some "Afternoon Delight" but she forgot it was her weekend with the boys.  She texted Kyle that she needed an emergency sitter and Kyle took them for the weekend 4-5 times last summer.

 

I'm not saying that happened, I'm just saying it could have knowing how Brandi exaggerates and belittles situations when it suits her.

[Jextella]

Going against the grain, but Kyle does nothing for me.  Kim is a mess and clearly (as Lisa R defined it) not happy...or else she wouldn't drink/do drugs, etc.

 

I think Kyle is all about Kyle and just about everything she does has to do with generating some sort of PR (including looking for Brandi's dog) - and nothing to do with being a good person.  Well, maybe that is overstating things but not by much.

 

I think she was born with smarts and Teflon skin which makes barreling through her life and those of others easier. Combined with good training by their show-biz mother, she's a pro.

 

Kim has major issues going back to childhood.  She wants to talk about them with Kyle, but Kyle is SO defensive, she won't even consider Kim's point of view.  Not that Kim is right or wrong....it's just that she wans to talk about issues and work through them. Kyle only does things on her terms.  A dialogue with Kim about how Kyle could possibly be in the wrong a time or two herself is not something Kyle will ever do.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Jextella

[erikdepressant]

I've had enough of both Richards sisters.  But especially Kim.

They should have just condensed her story into a trilogy of episodes:

 

The Addict: An Unexpected Gurney

The Addict: The Desolation of Smug

The Addict: The Battle of the Seven Harpies

[Ellee]

From T. Kyle Mac.  Pretty much says it I think. 

[zoeysmom]

I read the very slow loading legal documents provided by RadarOnLine.  Of interest is the plaintiff was visiting Kim with her daughter Lianne Harris and grandchild at the time of the attack.  I recalled reading the name Lianne in connection with Kim and then it hit me -she was one of the persons Kim mentioned in her blog as being there for her  http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/season-5/blogs/kim-richards/kim-brandi-and-kyles-feud-has . This is after Kim watched the episode with Brandi talking to Lisa and that is all she came away with?   I am just curious how friendly Lianne and Kim are these days with Lianne's mother suing Kim. 

 

There is a motion hearing set for April 6, 2015, and at the time it will be determined if Evolution Media is in or out as a defendant.  It is an interesting argument the plaintiff claims she was misled about the nature of the dog because Bravo (Evolution) peddled the story as a naughty dog who chewed up shoes and sunglasses and they showed Kim rolling around with the dog on the floor.  Evolution claims they showed a clip of the dog attacking the trainer and that the plaintiff should have known of the dog's propensity.  There is also a bunch of stuff in there about Kim and Evolution were not filming at the time.  The plaintiff claims that Kim did not want 911 called and feared she would lose her job.  Interesting comments by Kim and more importantly comments that her BFF Lianne would have heard when she went to rescue her mother. 

 

Kim just seems like much more of a liability than an asset.

[Higgins]

So Bravo's attorneys are using my argument.

[LotusFlower]

If I'm reading this argument correctly, how can Evolution (Bravo) surmise that every person who walks into Kim's house has seen RHOBH? And not just the show, but every scene, incl. the one with the trainer?

[Wings]

So Bravo's attorneys are using my argument.

 

 

And mine too!  I really do hope Kim is off next season.  She bugs me way more than Brandi.  

[GreatKazu]

Just wait until Kyle and Mauricio are subpoenaed with regards to their daughter, Alexia. Since the dog bite will be mentioned on the reunion show, it is no longer an issue as to what dog attacked Alexia. As if we didn't already know, but in a lawsuit, it does make a difference.

 

How long before we hear Kim yell at Kyle, "Because of you, I lost my goddam dog!!"? Or, "I lost my goddam job!!"?

 

Interesting how it was Bravo who hired the dog trainer. I will assume that the crew had been around to film and the dog was acting aggressive towards the camera operator and the rest of the crew. I betcha Kim wouldn't get rid of the dog for filming purposes and this is the reason why Mr. Utter (dog trainer) was brought in and a small storyline was built around that.

Edited March 29, 2015 by GreatKazu

[nexxie]

Just wait until the defendants in that above-referenced case subpoena Kyle and Mauricio with regards to their daughter, Alexia. Since the dog bite will be mentioned on the reunion show, it is no longer an issue as to what dog attacked Alexia. As if we didn't already know, but in a lawsuit, it does make a difference.

Yes, this will get interesting. imo the dog issue makes the case for Kim's unstable condition.

[zoeysmom]

So Bravo's attorneys are using my argument.

If your argument is the one I am thinking that the Plaintiff should have known the dog was dangerous and used common sense-not really.  I thought your argument was more in response to Alexia getting bit and Kyle warning her daughter about the dangers of going to Kim's house.  Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint stating Evolution (Bravo is not a named party in the suit) misrepresented the nature of the dog.  Evolution made $$$$ off the show and should have been more forth coming about the dangerous dog.  Obviously after the attack on the trainer, viewers were led to believe Kingsley went away and came back better-although we only saw him with a muzzle on after that.

 

Plaintiff also alleges that she was invited to Kim's house as an overnight guest and Kim asked for she and her daughter to come into her bedroom and then an unprovoked Kingsley attacked the old lady and knocked her to the ground.  Kim refused to call 91 because she was afraid she would lose her job.  The daughter called 911 because her mother needed immediate medical attention.

 

The Court may keep Evolution in as a defendant (which is to Kim's advantage financially) but after discovery they may be dismissed via a Summary Judgment.  Apparently, Evolution was aware and had to take precautions around the dog.  I will say Kyle said last year at the Reunion-which was taped, not sure if it aired that she was worried about the dog.  Kim said the dog was fine.  Brandi has said the dog has bitten her twice.  Plaintiff obviously wants to put forth a case that Evolution used the dog as part of Kim's storyline and that they made money off it.

[zoeysmom]

If I'm reading this argument correctly, how can Evolution (Bravo) surmise that every person who walks into Kim's house has seen RHOBH? And not just the show, but every scene, incl. the one with the trainer?

I think it is a misrepresentation issue.  They certainly put a storyline out there that Kingsley was a big ole overgrown puppy.  It doesn't matter if every person who walks into Kim's house saw the episodes only that this woman did and believed in Evolution's portrayal.  Me personally, I think it is a reach unless we see through discovery that (a) Kim was told she needed a storyline and the dog was a good one (b) that in order to film the dog training and other safety measures had to be taken.  It will also depend if Kim warned these people not to go into the bedroom-it doesn't sound like she did.

Edited March 29, 2015 by zoeysmom

[LotusFlower]

  It doesn't matter if every person who walks into Kim's house saw the episodes only that this woman did and believed in Evolution's portrayal.

But can't she claim that she watched the show after the attack? (Disclosure: I haven't read the complaint). Because I'm reading it like this - Kim's friend entered the house, got attacked by the dog, and Kim pleaded with her to keep it quiet so that she could keep the dog and keep her job. Out of friendship, she initially said ok, but then time passed and Kim refused to take responsibility or pay for the friend's medical care, then the dog bit Alexia. So the friend decided to take legal action, and watched the episodes in question as part of preparing her case.

[zoeysmom]

But can't she claim that she watched the show after the attack? (Disclosure: I haven't read the complaint). Because I'm reading it like this - Kim's friend entered the house, got attacked by the dog, and Kim pleaded with her to keep it quiet so that she could keep the dog and keep her job. Out of friendship, she initially said ok, but then time passed and Kim refused to take responsibility or pay for the friend's medical care, then the dog bit Alexia. So the friend decided to take legal action, and watched the episodes in question as part of preparing her case.

She said she watched the episodes and gave the dates before her mauling.  Evolution in their response said well if she watched the episodes then she would have seen the attack on the trainer.  So it works for and against her.  under regular dog bite law there is no such defense-but because this woman chose to make a Federal case out of it they are putting forth other theories of liability.

 

I am going to say this and then duck.  Kim may not have paid for Kay's medical expenses because it could be construed as an admission of liability.  My guess is she had health insurance and Medi-Care and they paid.  It just seems odd to me Kim claims the plaintiff's daughter as a BFF. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by zoeysmom

[LotusFlower]

It just seems odd to me Kim claims the plaintiff's daughter as a BFF.

Since when does family mean you support each other? (Ahem!)

Thanks for the other info. I still think that Evolution's position on watching the show pre-bite doesn't carry a lot of water, because a viewer could then say that seeing Kim hire a trainer creates the expectation that the dog is, well, trained, and no longer a danger.

[zoeysmom]

Since when does family mean you support each other? (Ahem!)

Thanks for the other info. I still think that Evolution's position on watching the show pre-bite doesn't carry a lot of water, because a viewer could then say that seeing Kim hire a trainer creates the expectation that the dog is, well, trained, and no longer a danger.

I think it is every reality show producers nightmare-people who are hurt go after the production company because they make money off the twits behavior.  IIRC Teresa sprayed some tourists with champagne which ended up in a donnybrook and Shed and Bravo paid out.  Granted they were down there filming at the time.

 

I also think this might have been the issue that pushed Brandi and Kim closer-Brandi would have been in NY filming Celebrity Apprentice at the time and Brandi, with all her amazing insider knowledge may have convinced Kim she might lose her job so Brandi offered to have Kim's back.  This coupled with Kyle selling mom's house may have been the perfect storm for these two nitwits to join forces.  I also believe that this Kay had been on the outs with the family since her cooperation with the unauthorized Hilton biography.  Leave it to Kim to hook up with family enemies for her own wants. 

[msblossom]

I read the very slow loading legal documents provided by RadarOnLine.  Of interest is the plaintiff was visiting Kim with her daughter Lianne Harris and grandchild at the time of the attack.  I recalled reading the name Lianne in connection with Kim and then it hit me -she was one of the persons Kim mentioned in her blog as being there for her  http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/season-5/blogs/kim-richards/kim-brandi-and-kyles-feud-has . This is after Kim watched the episode with Brandi talking to Lisa and that is all she came away with?   I am just curious how friendly Lianne and Kim are these days with Lianne's mother suing Kim. 

 

There is a motion hearing set for April 6, 2015, and at the time it will be determined if Evolution Media is in or out as a defendant.  It is an interesting argument the plaintiff claims she was misled about the nature of the dog because Bravo (Evolution) peddled the story as a naughty dog who chewed up shoes and sunglasses and they showed Kim rolling around with the dog on the floor.  Evolution claims they showed a clip of the dog attacking the trainer and that the plaintiff should have known of the dog's propensity.  There is also a bunch of stuff in there about Kim and Evolution were not filming at the time.  The plaintiff claims that Kim did not want 911 called and feared she would lose her job.  Interesting comments by Kim and more importantly comments that her BFF Lianne would have heard when she went to rescue her mother. 

 

Kim just seems like much more of a liability than an asset.

That's for sure. And I hope that this friend of the family wins the suit against Kim and is able to prove that Evolution is liable as well and therefore decide to cut their losses with Kim and fire her. The woman who is suing was viciously attacked and suffered a great deal. I hope she gets a big judgement.

[GreatKazu]

I didn't read the whole complaint. Is the plaintiff requesting Evolution produce footage (shown and not shown) as a evidence that the dog had a propensity for being vicious and therefore, they too are liable in some way?

 

 

Kim may not have paid for Kay's medical expenses because it could be construed as an admission of liability.  My guess is she had health insurance and Medi-Care and they paid.

Medi-care and any insurance that paid for her injuries would surely want their money back. I had a relative who was injured in a car accident. He had medi-care.  Medi-care paid, but they put a lien on the judgment so they could be reimbursed. Homeowner's insurance which would be responsible for this kind of damage. How much you want to bet that she doesn't have any insurance? Kim doesn't own a home.

 

Ohhh I can't wait until Kim digs herself a big, giant hole with her comments about her dog on the reunion. Anything she says...you know. :-)

Edited March 29, 2015 by GreatKazu

[Satchels of gold]

Loved Kims little speech ( referring to Brandi) about learning to forgive and seeing the good. That was just precious, wasn't it? Physician heal thyself. I also love when Yo and Kim talk about Brandi they preface with "underneath she is a good person". If you have to dig that hard to see the good, perhaps there is not much good there to begin with.

Edited March 30, 2015 by nc socialworker

[Wings]

The people bitten will win the suit.  I have no doubt.  There is NO argument that the dog was antagonized in this case.  None.  Kim is going to lose.  It will be settled out of court and the dog will mandated to be killed.  No question in my mind.  

[Higgins]

My argument is that when you have certain information that the dog had shown previous aggression and you failed to protect yourself, you are taking an assumption of risk when you are in his presence. Now legally, it may not hold up in court although she is the one who is trying to claim that production was deceptive in their presentation of Kingsley's temperament. I disagree with her. It was clear that he was a loose cannon after the trainer episode IMO and anyone with any sense would have been wary.

 

The legal argument of Assumption of Risk is used by defendants in many kinds of personal injury lawsuits, but one of the best illustrations is, in fact, a well-known dog bite case. In the Georgia case Durham v Mason, a boy was bitten by a dog belonging to his friend when he approached the dog to pet him. The owners said they had no previous reason to believe their dog was vicious (a requirement in order to hold them liable for negligence) — but the bitten boy testified that the dog had often growled at him and that he was somewhat afraid of the dog. Because of that testimony, the court held that the boy had reason to believe the dog might be dangerous, and that by approaching the dog anyway he had voluntarily taken upon himself (assumed) the risk of being bitten. The owners of the dog, therefore, were not held liable for the injury. - See more at: http://www.bestinjurylawyersusa.com/blog/assumption-of-risk-beware-of-dog/#sthash.LqJEvfs0.dpuf

 

 

If I'm reading this argument correctly, how can Evolution (Bravo) surmise that every person who walks into Kim's house has seen RHOBH? And not just the show, but every scene, incl. the one with the trainer?

She is the one who is claiming she watched the show.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Higgins

[SwordQueen]

Man, I love how nothing is Kim's fault.  It's like a game at this point -- Who can we blame Kim's fuckups on, now?  Obama, I think it's your turn. 

 

If I have a vicious dog in my home and then personally invite someone into my home to visit, I would - as a sane, rational, thoughtful, non-narcissistic, non-junkie - take measures to make sure that my vicious dog was not in my home and/or my guest(s) were not at all accessible to my vicious dog.  But that's just me.   

 

Loved Kims little speech ( referring to Brandi) about learning to forgive and seeing the good. That was just precious, wasn't it? Physician heal thyself. I also love when Yo and Kim talk about Brandi they preface with "underneath she is a good person". If you have to dig that hard to see the good, perhaps there is not much good there to begin with.

 

LOL  Great point.   I am totally guilty of saying that about some of the people in my life when I was younger.  I knew they were crappy people but I wasn't willing to admit that out loud but especially to myself. 

 

Why does Yo think that people want to take the time to scrape all of the bullshit and barnacles off of Brandi and then bleach the fuck out of her twisted black soul, in order to find something "good" about her?  Ain't nobody got time for that.  Ditto for Kim and the black, empty space where her soul should be. 

[Higgins]

Just pointing out the legal there is legal precedent of assumption of risk. Of course Kim has fault. She has terrible judgment. She has the reasoning skills of a young teen. However, they made poor decisions too. 

 

What I don't understand is, where was animal control in all of this? The hospital had to make a report and do an investigation after the first bite. Then Alexia was bitten and what did they do then? There are designations of dangerous dog up to vicious I believe and then euthanasia. 3 bites your out or something like that and with each designation there are restrictions and liability placed on the owner.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Higgins

[LotusFlower]

My argument is that when you have certain information that the dog had shown previous aggression and you failed to protect yourself, you are taking an assumption of risk when you are in his presence. Now legally, it may not hold up in court although she is the one who is trying to claim that production was deceptive in their presentation of Kingsley's temperament. I disagree with her. It was clear that he was a loose cannon after the trainer episode IMO and anyone with any sense would have been wary.

But I think she could make a more compelling case that after watching the episodes in question, she had the expectation that the dog, never vicious but aggressive towards shoes and sunglasses (I have since read the complaint!) was now well-trained. Especially compounded by Kim's assertion that Kingsley was now "friendly and cuddly" as she playfully rolled around on the floor with him.

[GreatKazu]

California Dog Bite Law:

 

 

California’s Dog Bite Law:
Calif. Civil Code § 3342.

    The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

Defenses to dog bite:

 

Trespassing:  The plaintiff was not trespassing. She was an invited guest in Kim's home.

Inadequate identity of dog: Plaintiff and defendant are clear that Kingsley was the dog who attacked.

Injury was caused by something other than a dog bite: It is clear by both parties, the plaintiff was attacked and injured by the dog.

Lack of ownership of dog: Kingsley is owned by Kim.

 

Assumption of Risk: This below...(plaintiff will win her suit in my opinion):

 

 

Defense based on provocation, comparative negligence and assumption of the risk

Although Civil Code section 3342 appears to impose strict liability in all instances where the victim is not a trespasser and the dog was not on duty for the military or the police, California courts have denied recovery to victims who (a) provoked the dog, (b) negligently caused the attack, or © assumed the risk of a dog attack. Burden v. Globerson (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 468, 471. Such defenses exist "in spite of the language of Civil Code section 3342." Burden v. Globerson, ibid., at p. 470.

The court decisions are directly opposed to the wording of the statute, and yet, California courts have always permitted these defenses. See Johnson v. McMahon (1998) 68 Cal.App. 4th 173, 176, "[t]he defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence may still be asserted" (citing Witkin, 6 Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, sec. 1225, p. 659 (9th Ed. 1998).)

We entertain no doubt that in adopting the statute here in question the Legislature did not intend to make the liability of the owner absolute and render inoperative certain principles of law such as assumption of risk or wilfully inviting injury, which over a long period of time have been established in our system of jurisprudence. While the Dog Bite Statute does not found the liability on negligence, good morals and sound reasoning dictate that if a person lawfully upon the portion of another's property where the biting occurred should kick, tease, or otherwise provoke the dog, the law should and would recognize the defense that the injured person by his conduct invited injury and therefore, assumed the risk thereof. (Smythe v. Schacht (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 315, 321-322.)

Provocation, comparative negligence and assumption of the risk are for the trier of fact to decide. (Burden, supra.) These defenses are discussed together because the court opinions frequently mix the concepts.

The cases provide some guidance as to what conduct of the plaintiff may, or may not, constitute provocation, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk:

  

  Recovery permitted
    Walking toward a dog did not constitute provocation. Chandler v. Vaccaro (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 786.

    Holding packages, walking toward a dog and its owner, and addressing the owner did not constitute contributory negligence. Eigner v. Race (1942) 43 Cal.App.2d 506.

    Where the plaintiff was seated in front of the dog, rising up and turning to face the dog did not constitute provocation. Westwater v. Southern Pacific Co. (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 369.

    Reaching toward a dog to pet him did not constitute contributory negligence. Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, etc., Inc. (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 479.

    Playing with a dog and patting his head did not constitute assumption of the risk. Smythe v. Schacht (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 315.

    Feeding a dog did not constitute assumption of the risk. Burden v. Globerson (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 468.

    Helping to wrap and transport an injured dog did not constitute assumption of the risk. Davis v. Gaschler (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1392.

    In Burden v. Globerson (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 468 the court ruled that regardless of the dog's breed, one does not assume the risk of being bitten simply by choosing to initiate interaction with a dog.

    Recovery is permitted in circumstances where the dog had a history of biting and the owner neglected to reveal it, because this type of case falls within common law strict liability or because of the additional element of mispresentation.

Edited March 30, 2015 by GreatKazu

[Almost 3000]

The people bitten will win the suit.  I have no doubt.  There is NO argument that the dog was antagonized in this case.  None.  Kim is going to lose.  It will be settled out of court and the dog will mandated to be killed.  No question in my mind.  

I believe you have called that one right. This is not like an auto accident where blame can be argued and assigned. Kim will be found 100% to blame because that is the law in CA. The only unknown is how much damage will be and if Evolution/Bravo will have to also write a check. Sad situation for all involved.

[LotusFlower]

I can't see any legal scenerio where Kim, as Kingsley's owner, is not held liable. She is clearly responsible. What's less certain is Bravo/Evolution's level of responsibility. Bravo is trying to get dismissed as a defendant, but if they're successful, Kim is still on the hook. If they're not, Kim is in even bigger trouble, job-wise. If Kim's drug-addled behavior doesn't get her fired, one would think this would do it. One would think....

[zoeysmom]

So I have often wondered-what did this Monty Brinson do for a living before he was stricken with terminal cancer?

 

Apparently, he was a supermarket chain heir.  The maternal grandfather started the Greensboro chain and was passed on to Monty's mother, her three brothers, a half sister and half brother.  The chain was acquired by Teeter-Harris (Ruddick) in 1984, a year before Kim married Monty.   Monty's uncle stayed on and became the leader of the merged group.  So after marrying Kim in 1985, he at some point near the end of their marriage borrowed or was given $1,000,000.00 to make a movie.  The movie Escape starred Kim Richards who also took producer credit as Kim Richards Brinson.  The movie was released in 1989.   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099517/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

 

Monty's mother died in 2000, his father a couple of years later  http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40529516 .  Monty has two sisters and a brother.  So I am left with the burning question does Monty have a decent net worth?  It would seem other than be a professional poker player the guy doesn't work.  Maybe he makes millions a year off of his trust but if he has been Kim's best friend for the past 20 years-why doesn't he support her instead of Kyle?  Why wouldn't he buy her home to raise Brooke in? Or maybe this latest house is his?  Anyway he went on to marry Terri Doss and had two daughters  Madelyn Brinson-a model https://www.google.com/search?q=madelyn+brinson&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&rlz=1I7NDKB_enUS584&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=-JAYVdTdIs-eoQTk8YCYDQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=805#imgdii=_&imgrc=TVrrRm72ZlKvuM%253A%3BuvEpufFfY7gArM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ujenanetwork.com%252Fphotos%252Fmodel%252Freal%252F42361%252F215050.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ujenanetwork.com%252Fmodel%252F42361.html%3B167%3B250

and Alexandrea Brinson, a community college student.  https://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexandrea-brinson/5b/199/509

 

So with three daughters who do not seem to be self-supporting, Brooke being a bon vivant it would seem that rumors of Kim waiting to cash in when Monty dies may be overly optimistic.  Brooke seems to be vacationing without her husband  (twice this month) instead of tending to dear old dad.  This union confuses me.

I didn't read the whole complaint. Is the plaintiff requesting Evolution produce footage (shown and not shown) as a evidence that the dog had a propensity for being vicious and therefore, they too are liable in some way?

 

Medi-care and any insurance that paid for her injuries would surely want their money back. I had a relative who was injured in a car accident. He had medi-care.  Medi-care paid, but they put a lien on the judgment so they could be reimbursed. Homeowner's insurance which would be responsible for this kind of damage. How much you want to bet that she doesn't have any insurance? Kim doesn't own a home.

 

Ohhh I can't wait until Kim digs herself a big, giant hole with her comments about her dog on the reunion. Anything she says...you know. :-)

Kim may have bought the house.  I say that because there are no other parties to the lawsuit except Kim and Evolution, most times the property owner is sued as well not just a renter.

Edited March 30, 2015 by zoeysmom

[GreatKazu]

TMZ on the incidents...This dog has bitten four people. No complaints have been filed with animal control with the exception of one person who was bitten in the summer. This biting incident occurred between Alexia's biting incident and this friend of Kim's who has filed the lawsuit:

 

 

TMZ broke the story ... 18-year-old Alexia was in Kim's L.A. area home Saturday when the animal attacked without warning, biting her so badly she needed 2 surgeries.

 

Turns out the dog is no stranger to the L.A. Dept. of Animal Services ... the agency went to Kim's house after the dog attacked another person over the summer. Officials warned Kim to keep the dog under control but took no further action.

Well clearly the dog was not under control. But Animal Services tells us ... they will not take further action unless they get a complaint from the victim or her family.  That's tricky, because that would mean Alexia, Kyle or other members of their brood would have to blow the whistle on Kim.

And get this ... we're told of a third attack that occurred in March.  One of Kim's friend was sitting on Kim's bed and the dog bit through her arm to the bone.  Paramedics were called to treat the victim.

 

And there's a 4th incident involving a trainer who was bit.

To top it off we're told the dog has been extremely aggressive toward other animals.

IF someone comes forward and makes a formal complaint, Animal Services will hold a hearing to determine if the pit bull should stay under Kim's care, or if it should be destroyed.

[msblossom]

So I have often wondered-what did this Monty Brinson do for a living before he was stricken with terminal cancer?

 

Apparently, he was a supermarket chain heir.  The maternal grandfather started the Greensboro chain and was passed on to Monty's mother, her three brothers, a half sister and half brother.  The chain was acquired by Teeter-Harris (Ruddick) in 1984, a year before Kim married Monty.   Monty's uncle stayed on and became the leader of the merged group.  So after marrying Kim in 1985, he at some point near the end of their marriage borrowed or was given $1,000,000.00 to make a movie.  The movie Escape starred Kim Richards who also took producer credit as Kim Richards Brinson.  The movie was released in 1989.   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099517/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

 

Monty's mother died in 2000, his father a couple of years later  http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40529516 .  Monty has two sisters and a brother.  So I am left with the burning question does Monty have a decent net worth?  It would seem other than be a professional poker player the guy doesn't work.  Maybe he makes millions a year off of his trust but if he has been Kim's best friend for the past 20 years-why doesn't he support her instead of Kyle?  Why wouldn't he buy her home to raise Brooke in? Or maybe this latest house is his?  Anyway he went on to marry Terri Doss and had two daughters  Madelyn Brinson-a model https://www.google.com/search?q=madelyn+brinson&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&rlz=1I7NDKB_enUS584&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=-JAYVdTdIs-eoQTk8YCYDQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=805#imgdii=_&imgrc=TVrrRm72ZlKvuM%3A%3BuvEpufFfY7gArM%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ujenanetwork.com%2Fphotos%2Fmodel%2Freal%2F42361%2F215050.jpg%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ujenanetwork.com%2Fmodel%2F42361.html%3B167%3B250

and Alexandrea Brinson, a community college student.  https://www.linkedin.com/pub/alexandrea-brinson/5b/199/509

 

So with three daughters who do not seem to be self-supporting, Brooke being a bon vivant it would seem that rumors of Kim waiting to cash in when Monty dies may be overly optimistic.  Brooke seems to be vacationing without her husband  (twice this month) instead of tending to dear old dad.  This union confuses me.

Kim may have bought the house.  I say that because there are no other parties to the lawsuit except Kim and Evolution, most times the property owner is sued as well not just a renter.

Didn't she initially rent it when she moved in 2 or 3 years ago after her rehab stint? She may have made arrangements to buy it or maybe Monty purchased it for her?

[zoeysmom]

Just pointing out the legal there is legal precedent of assumption of risk. Of course Kim has fault. She has terrible judgment. She has the reasoning skills of a young teen. However, they made poor decisions too. 

 

What I don't understand is, where was animal control in all of this? The hospital had to make a report and do an investigation after the first bite. Then Alexia was bitten and what did they do then? There are designations of dangerous dog up to vicious I believe and then euthanasia. 3 bites your out or something like that and with each designation there are restrictions and liability placed on the owner.

I posted the California dog bite law-there are exceptions if it happens on your property and Kim exception is that Alexia entered the bedroom after being told not to.  I don't think Alexia had any desire to push for the dog to be removed-which it eventually sent away.  So with no complaining witness and dozens of cases no one will pursue  Kim except civilly.

Didn't she initially rent it when she moved in 2 or 3 years ago after her rehab stint? She may have made arrangements to buy it or maybe Monty purchased it for her?

I don't know-usually the homeowner is sued as well but since this is a federal case maybe they are going a different route.  I would think if it was Monty's he'd be sued as well if this is just a case of going after Evolution the plaintiff should beware. 

[Found A Peanut]

Plaintiff also alleges that she was invited to Kim's house as an overnight guest and Kim asked for she and her daughter to come into her bedroom and then an unprovoked Kingsley attacked the old lady and knocked her to the ground.  Kim refused to call 91 because she was afraid she would lose her job.  The daughter called 911 because her mother needed immediate medical attention.

Kim really refused to call 911 when that woman got mauled? That casts an unflattering light on Kim's account of what happened to Alexia. With Kim just calling Kyle and then driving Alexia to the hospital herself, it almost sounded like the bite didn't look that bad at first. But I've seen the photos of what Kingsley did to K.R. Even all cleaned up, it was clear she was seriously injured. In the mayhem, with the blood pouring, it would have been utterly horrifying to see how hurt she was. How do you refuse to call for help in a situation like that? Especially with an elderly woman where you should be concerned that the shock could kill her, for the stress of it if she has heart issues, and for bones breaking in her fall.

I also believe that this Kay had been on the outs with the family since her cooperation with the unauthorized Hilton biography.  Leave it to Kim to hook up with family enemies for her own wants.

At least two of Kim's exes were sources for House of Hilton and relations between the Hilton-Richards clan and Monty Brinson certainly seem chummy. Maybe dishing for that book wasn't the exile into outer Siberia it was made out to be. I vaguely recall seeing a lot of familiar names when I looked over the acknowledgements for that book, actually. Maybe Kim's family, unlike Kim's dog, are all bark and no bite.

[Higgins]

But I think she could make a more compelling case that after watching the episodes in question, she had the expectation that the dog, never vicious but aggressive towards shoes and sunglasses (I have since read the complaint!) was now well-trained. Especially compounded by Kim's assertion that Kingsley was now "friendly and cuddly" as she playfully rolled around on the floor with him.

I guess you missed the trainer episode. When the dog tried to attack him as soon as he walked in the door.

[zoeysmom]

I guess you missed the trainer episode. When the dog tried to attack him as soon as he walked in the door.

What the plaintiff is asserting is that after the attack on the trainer, Evolution presented that the dog had been sent out for training and was now well trained and it showed the dog and Kim rolling around on the floor together.  At first when I saw the attack on the trainer I thought it was staged and we would see a well behaved dog after its miracle training course with the trainer.  Instead they had a muzzle on the dog. 

[AnnA]

 

I don't know-usually the homeowner is sued as well but since this is a federal case maybe they are going a different route. 

 

How did it become a federal case?

[WireWrap]

My argument is that when you have certain information that the dog had shown previous aggression and you failed to protect yourself, you are taking an assumption of risk when you are in his presence. Now legally, it may not hold up in court although she is the one who is trying to claim that production was deceptive in their presentation of Kingsley's temperament. I disagree with her. It was clear that he was a loose cannon after the trainer episode IMO and anyone with any sense would have been wary.

 

The legal argument of Assumption of Risk is used by defendants in many kinds of personal injury lawsuits, but one of the best illustrations is, in fact, a well-known dog bite case. In the Georgia case Durham v Mason, a boy was bitten by a dog belonging to his friend when he approached the dog to pet him. The owners said they had no previous reason to believe their dog was vicious (a requirement in order to hold them liable for negligence) — but the bitten boy testified that the dog had often growled at him and that he was somewhat afraid of the dog. Because of that testimony, the court held that the boy had reason to believe the dog might be dangerous, and that by approaching the dog anyway he had voluntarily taken upon himself (assumed) the risk of being bitten. The owners of the dog, therefore, were not held liable for the injury. - See more at: http://www.bestinjurylawyersusa.com/blog/assumption-of-risk-beware-of-dog/#sthash.LqJEvfs0.dpuf

 

 

She is the one who is claiming she watched the show.

First, KR may have taken Kim's word that Kingsley was retrained and had never shown aggression to another person except the trainer. Kim really pushed the lie that the dog was just still acting like a puppy and only chewing on things, not people, on the show and IMO, she kept up the lie with people in her private life. They never said on the show that the trainer was bit, we only saw the dog lunge at him and by the time he brought the dog back to Kim's house, he was fine with the trainer. So many viewers were up in arms at the trainer, saying he was horrid, that he did the wrong thing, they blamed the trainer, not the dog and certainly not Kim so it s more than reasonable to believe that KR never knew how bad the dog really was. Also, none of us knew that production built the dog a "holding pen" in her yard to keep themselves safe while filming there as it was never talked about or shown last season on any episode or in any blog Kim wrote.

 

As for Alexia/Kyle, there is no way to know if either knew about the attack/bites to KR. I have no problem with believing Kim told no one about it, even her sisters. KR did nothing publicly until after Alexia was bitten by the dog so there is no way to determine they had knowledge that the dog was out of control and aggressive with people he already knew.

What the plaintiff is asserting is that after the attack on the trainer, Evolution presented that the dog had been sent out for training and was now well trained and it showed the dog and Kim rolling around on the floor together.  At first when I saw the attack on the trainer I thought it was staged and we would see a well behaved dog after its miracle training course with the trainer.  Instead they had a muzzle on the dog. 

When the trainer brought the dog back to Kim's house he was not muzzled in the car. The trainer put the muzzle on the dog before he brought it back inside her house, my guess is he did so because they were filming.

[Found A Peanut]

Higgins, I know you said a few pages back that you were done discussing Kim's mental illness, but I was wondering if you would answer a question. I've been turning over in my head what you said about Kim's delusions not being obvious, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to describe what those not obvious delusions are and give some examples? I'm not trying to open up a can of worms, and I won't be offended if you're not up for it. Your comments about this have given me some food for thought in looking over my own family stuff. While as a group we have a colourful assortment of official diagnoses, I'm rethinking a lot of unofficial situations.

[BluishGreen]

It's sad, really, that Kim is so desperate that she attaches herself to this brutal, vicious creature who seems driven to attack and hurt others;  someday, Kim will be the one who gets torn to pieces and she will have no one but herself to blame.

 

And she has that crazy dog, too.....

Edited March 30, 2015 by BluishGreen

[GreatKazu]

 

Alexia entered the bedroom after being told not to

According to addle-brained Kim. Her version or the truth? If, and this is a big if. If Kim told Alexia not to go in the bedroom, my feeling is because there was something or more than something in there that she didn't want Alexia to see such as drugs or booze or both. I will throw in she might have had a vibrator laying around as well.

[nexxie]

It's sad, really, that Kim is so desperate that she attaches herself to this brutal, vicious creature who seems driven to attack and hurt others;  someday, Kim will be the one who gets torn to pieces and she will have no one but herself to blame.

 

And she has that crazy dog, too.....

Heh, heh - you are so bad! ;)

[Higgins]

For example a person could have a fixed false belief about something even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary and nobody else sees it the same way. These can occur in anyone. Some people have jealous delusions or persecutory delusions or somatic delusions that they just can't shake even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

[Found A Peanut]

For example a person could have a fixed false belief about something even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary and nobody else sees it the same way. These can occur in anyone. Some people have jealous delusions or persecutory delusions or somatic delusions that they just can't shake even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

How would you distinguish a fixed false belief from bad character such as someone making assertions about their own beliefs in bad faith? Other than self report, what do you go on?

[GreatKazu]

For example a person could have a fixed false belief about something even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary and nobody else sees it the same way. These can occur in anyone. Some people have jealous delusions or persecutory delusions or somatic delusions that they just can't shake even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

I refer to that as paranoia. Watched it many, many times in the addicts, especially those who took meth.