Lawyers meet this week for mediation
Lawyers involved in a web of lawsuits surrounding the deadly Sofa Super Store fire are huddling at an undisclosed location this week as part of a court-recommended mediation process.
The families of six of the nine Charleston firefighters killed in the June 18 blaze are suing the store's owner, several furniture manufacturers and other companies, alleging the businesses were negligent in the deaths.
The goal of this week's sessions is to determine whether a settlement is possible and what the dollar amount might be. Lawsuits stemming from the tragedy could drag on for years if the talks fail to produce a compromise.
In February, Circuit Judge Roger Young declared the cases "complex," a legal determination to consolidate and streamline the myriad of depositions and discovery motions likely to take place as the case moves forward. Young encouraged both sides to start resolving some of the issues before coming back to him in July.
Attorneys for the two sides could not be reached for comment Monday.
Alicia Ward, director of marketing and communications for Motley Rice law firm, said the sessions are private and attorneys are not allowed to discuss what transpires during the proceedings. Motley Rice represents the families of fallen firefighters Brad Baity, Capt. William "Billy" Hutchinson and Melvin Champaign.
The families of Capt. Louis Mulkey, Capt. Mike Benke, firefighter James "Earl" Drayton have filed similar lawsuits.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 13 comment(s)
Posted by BillytheKid on June 17, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the lawyers have to talk to each other?
Posted by Tulane75 on June 17, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You want to drop a bomb on the "money hungry lawyers", the ones who are representing the families for their losses? You want to kill the surviving family members who are participating in the mediation?
The families are certainly free to proceed without counsel or not to proceed at all, for that matter.
Most important, the comment by wpc3iop appears to be a threat, which the local police departments should investigate. In this day and time, these warning signs cannot be ignored. Maybe the writer is kidding and maybe not. It looks like a threat to me!
Posted by Late27 on June 17, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What wpc3iop ?
Ignorant, uniformed, and just plain irresponsible comment.
Posted by ed52 on June 17, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tulane, they have recieved over 1,000,000 a family !!!! so lets sue totally innocent corporations. money hungry is the nicest thing that could be said ! the city is the only entity that should be liable for sending them into a burning building ..
rusty resigned. now its riley's turn .
Posted by bigwhip on June 17, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tulane, you must sleep with a light on so the dark doesn't threaten you. Wpc may be over the top with his comment, but greed sure dominates this picture. They are suing the store & furniture makers for what? What about the mayor,the fire chief, the on scene leader, and let us not forget the Public Safty Committee. Has anyone looked at the minutes of their meetings....equipment issues, financial issues, methodology issues, and training issues being discussed. These men did not die because of the furniture, the store. They died fighting a fire with outdated equipment and tactics. Finally, what history is out there regarding inspections and follow up?
Posted by ptmama73 on June 17, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with bigwhip. The furniture manufacturers did not kill those brave men. The out-dated, out-moded equipment and practices did.
These people are nothing more than greedy POS.
Thanks to the "greiving", money grubbing family members, I will NOT donate money to another charity of this sort. I don't ever want to help someone pay for their pond scum lawyers...as a matter of fact I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
Posted by Rebel_Yell on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The storeowner has it coming to him and everyone with a bird sized brain knows it. The store was not kept per code and required emergency exit doors were chain locked. There's plenty of blame for the property owner. Now the couch makers, that's a stretch--but they should not make everything out of crap nylon and foam which fuels a fire to the point that it endangers everyone in a home in 2 seconds. The city already paid these men their workers comp and that's all they can get from their employer--that's just the way it is.
ptmama73 -- you can have your 2 cents back. Cheapo
Posted by ptmama73 on June 17, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ohhhh - the name calling begins. You hurt my feelings - yeah right (eyes roll)
I have no issue donating to charity WHEN it is appreciated and used in an appropriate manner - which, IMO, does not include hiring a lawyer to get MORE money from a furniture manufacturer that DID NOT CAUSE THEIR DEATHS. In a situation such as this, where over 1 mil per family was collected (from the good will and charity of many people, myself included) and distributed THEN they start suing for more...Yeah, that's when I AM cheap and wish I had never donated in the first place.
Now if they were suing ONLY the owner, CCFD, and Charleston County then I would support them. That would not be greed, that would be justice.
Posted by bigwhip on June 17, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel, do you have any documentation on code violations, how many times the store was inspected (if any), any follow up visits? How many citations were issued? Any fines paid? Is there any documentation of required changes & alterations that the store was required to do and was found to have not done. There is plenty of blame to go around and not so much for the store and furniture makers. This is nothing but an exercise in greed in it's purest form.
Posted by gococks1985 on June 17, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel- while it was the store owners responsibility to keep the store up to the city code, it was also the city's responsibility to fine and even shut the establishment down if they were not up to code. I will have to agree with several posters here...SSS is not the only one to blame for the deaths of these firefighters. The city had a HUGE role in their deaths as well, yet none of the families are filing suit against the city. There seems to be a problem with the entire system.
Posted by carolinagal on June 17, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So How about the brilliant employee who chunked his cigarette down to begin with- he is the root of this whole thing...who is he? I want to know!!!!!
Posted by eatmorecollards on June 17, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I seriously doubt that very much of that furniture was made in America,if any. Maybe some American furniture makers served as a middle man but I doubt that also. Just my opinion.
Posted by ironhorse on June 18, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After 911, I like many Americans gave to a relief fund. When I saw the greed and corruption that resulted, I vowed to never give to large scale disasters based on emotion. Then came Katrina, I gave nothing and saw the corruption unfold. Those tragedies, and now the SSS fire, are preventing my financial assistance to Midwest flood victims. I am finished footing the bill which pays only for more victimization by lawyers.