Two men who alleged Michael Jackson sexually abused them when they were boys tried to seek justice but unfortunately, their quest to seeking justice was crushed by a jury’s final verdict and the case was dismissed. Meanwhile judges at a US court have disagreed on the earlier verdict and have revived the “DEAD CASE”.
“Trouble for Michael Jackson and the Jackson’s”!
Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who claim Jackson abused them for years, will now be allowed to pursue lawsuits against companies owned by the late singer.
It’s the second time the lawsuits which were brought by Robson in 2013 and Safechuck in 2014 – have been brought back after dismissal.
Both men detailed their claims of abuse in the 2019 HBO documentary Leaving Neverland.
In a Friday ruling, the California Court of Appeal revived two lawsuits against the King of Pop’s production company … one from James Safechuck, and the other from Wade Robson, who both accuse Michael of molesting them for many years when they were kids.
Remember, Safechuck and Robson were suing Michael’s corporation, MJJ Productions, but their suits were dismissed in 2021 by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who found the company had no legal duty to protect Safechuck, Robson or anyone else from MJ because it had no ability to control him.
Now, a higher court begs to differ … meaning Safechuck and Robson’s cases will be sent back down to the trial court.
Robson, now a 40-year-old choreographer, met Jackson when he was five years old. He went on to appear in three Jackson music videos.
His lawsuit alleged that Jackson molested him over a seven-year period.
Safechuck, now 45, also said in his suit that he was nine when he met Jackson while filming a Pepsi commercial. He said Jackson called him often and lavished him with gifts before moving on to sexually abusing him.
A three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal have now found that their lawsuits should not have been dismissed by a lower court.
The higher court judges disagreed, writing 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.”
They added that “it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder. And so we reverse the judgments entered for the corporations.”
Jonathan Steinsapir, attorney for the Jackson estate, said they were “Disappointed and trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again.”