MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W168443748

Defending against Suits Brought by Illegal Aliens

2009· article· en· W168443748 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerry Joe Knauff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDamagesWrongful deathLawPlaintiffTortMisrepresentationJuryDoctrineLawsuitImmigrationPolitical scienceSociologyLiability
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. Introduction PIERRE LEFAUX is a citizen of Canada who illegally (1) the United States. (2) Pierre used a forged birth certificate and false social security card in the name of Peter Jones to obtain employment with XYZ Painting, a Texas company in the business of residential house painting. While on a job in Dallas, Pierre was injured in a fire when combustible materials ignited from a spark. Pierre sustained severe bums and may be unable to work for the remainder of his life. Pierre brought suit against XYZ Painting for negligence and claimed lost past and future earning capacity damages, among other damages. This article uses Texas case law, as well as persuasive arguments from other jurisdictions, to provide insight into the following questions defense counsel should address when faced with a suit brought by an illegal alien like Pierre: * Is Pierre entitled to recover damages for lost future earning capacity in U.S. wages? * Are Pierre's lost earnings claims preempted by any federal or state laws? * Are Pierre's claims barred by state law or the Unlawful Acts Doctrine? * May evidence of Pierre's immigration status be submitted to the jury? and * Should Pierre's expert account for his immigration status when formulating opinions? II. Loss of Future Earning Capacity An essential question that arises in any tort suit brought by an illegal alien (3) is whether compensatory damages for lost wages should be measured based on the plaintiff's ability to work in the United States or in his home country. While arguments and analysis regarding claim preclusion and/or preemption are less likely to apply to aliens who are employed by an employer with full knowledge of their illegal status or aliens who obtain employment from an unwitting employer without tendering any fraudulent documents, (4) a strong case may be made in many jurisdictions that workers like Pierre are not entitled to compensation based on U.S. wages. Texas has been cited as a state in which case law provides greater protection for illegal aliens seeking compensation for lost wages based on U.S. wages. (5) Even in Texas, however, the law is unsettled on the issue of whether an illegal alien who was employed under fraudulent circumstances may recover damages for the loss of future earning capacity based on U.S. wages. Four Texas courts have reviewed the issue, but their worth is minimal since the factual scenarios provide alternative protections for these immigrants and none relied upon any authority or performed any analysis to establish such a right. In Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan, a longshoreman was injured on the job. (6) The longshoreman was an illegal alien who had resided in the U.S. continuously since 1970. (7) The M/V Rajaan court held an illegal alien may recover lost wages in U.S. earnings unless the defendant can establish the illegal alien was about to be or would surely be deported. (8) This holding was predicated on the fact that the longshoreman could remain in the U.S. legally because the Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty/citizenship status to those aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and ... resided continuously in the United States in an unlawful status since such date.... (9) Further, M/V Rajaan was decided before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Hoffman Plastic, and its holding has not been challenged post-Hoffman. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cordova, the El Paso Court of Appeals, in a footnote without discussion or citation to authority, stated Texas law does not require citizenship or the possession of immigration work authorization permits as a prerequisite to recovering damages for loss of earning capacity. (10) The Cordova court, however, did not address whether Texas courts should allow a plaintiff's illegal status into evidence when determining lost earning capacity. (11) More importantly, the Cordova court did not discuss whether the lost earning capacity damages should be measured at United States wages or the wages available in the plaintiff's country of origin. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,032
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,063

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,007
Communication savante0,0070,002
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesTravaux en français237 207