Kevin Adams filed a case against 51 local drug dealers under the Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA) passed in Oklahoma in 1994. I just started reading this case, Tulsa County CJ-2013-4297, and it is worth looking at. I have attached a link to the complaint below. I can tell you from reading the Answers from all these Defendants, he ain’t losin’ this one yet. In fact, the statute of limitations argument seems to be their best argument, and that isn’t going to work, in my opinion. The statute provides a tolling period for two years from the date that the plaintiff becomes aware of her detriment. This means that juveniles will have two years from the date that they become aware of the drug dealers’ liability. Therefore, if they know now, two years from when they turn 18. If they are harmed now and don’t realize it till age 60 they get until age 62.
Jeff Krigel is a Tulsa Criminal Attorney assisting clients with criminal defense in Tulsa and surrounding areas. He offers free consultations and has payment plans available.
The complaint can be found here
Here is the text from a KRMG article which can be found at this link.
“A Tulsa attorney says he’ll use a little-known law to go after the assets of drug dealers on behalf of some of their most innocent victims – the children of drug addicts – even though the defendants in his lawsuit didn’t even know his clients’ parents.
Kevin Adams tells KRMG the Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA) passed in Oklahoma in 1994.
It specifies that addicts and others injured by the activities of the dealers can sue them — even if they’re not directly in the chain of distribution through which the addicts obtained the drugs.
It’s only necessary to prove they sold the same kind of drugs in the same “market area,” Adams explained, which he has defined in his suit at Tulsa County.
“All I have to prove is that they (the defendants) participated in the illegal drug market, in Tulsa County, with the same type of drugs that one of these children’s mothers was addicted to,” he told KRMG.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 10 in Tulsa County District Court, specifies 51 defendants and three plaintiffs.
Adams says he chose the defendants based on the requirements of the DDLA, and also because they had tangible assets that would make recovery of money possible if the lawsuit is successful.
He adds that while the courts and the police do a great job fighting the drug trade, this lawsuit — and others that could potentially follow — will help put the dealers out of business.”
Comments are closed.