Putting new meaning into the word chutzpah, the kidnapper, Jesse Dimmick is suing Jared and Lindsay Rowley for breach of contract.
Police said Dimmick held the Rowleys in their Kansas home against their will. He'd been fleeing a murder charge, wrecked his car on the Rowley's front lawn, then went inside their house and held them at knifepoint, according to authorities.
|Jesse Dimmick is suing a couple he kidnapped for|
not helping him elude police.
The Rowleys seemed to have hatched a ploy to get out of their predicament. They told Dimmick, falsely, it turned out, they would hide Dimmick from the cops, and Dimmick would pay them.
But those dastardely Rowleys didn't keep their promise. They sat down with Dimmick, played the movie "Patch Adams" until Dimmick got bored to tears and fell asleep. The couple fled while Dimmick snoozed.
I haven't seen "Patch Adams" but it must be slow if it puts an agitated home invader to sleep. But then again, you can't knock the Rowleys for trying to be good hosts and make Dimmick relax.
Dimmick, though, is unimpressed. Says he in his lawsuit:
"I, the defendant, asked the Rowleys to hide me because I feared for my life. I offered the Rowleys an unspecified amount of money which they agreed upon, therefore forging a legally binding oral contract."
Police ended up raiding the house, and Dimmick was shot in the back in the process. He says his medical bills are $160,000, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal, all because the evil Rowleys wouldn't help him hide from the cops.
Now Dimmick is asserting his rights! How dare the Rowleys lie to him! They promised him they'd help him get away from the cops. He wants $235,000 for this terrible injustice, according to the Capital-Journal.
This all could be retailiation. The Rowleys had already sued Dimmick for $75,000, citing the emotional distress of Dimmick's attack, the Capital-Journal reported.
If you're wondering what kind of lawyer would take on the case for Dimmick, there's no lawyer. He's representing himself. Well, he's showing the self sufficiency that made this country great, isn't he?
The problem for Dimmick is, it appears the Rowleys have a pretty strong defense. The legal reasoning of their lawyer seem pretty reasonable, to be honest:
1. Nothing's in writing. So how is Dimmick going to prove there was a contract?
2. Nobody agreed on a price. So if nobody made an agreement on specifics, how is there a contract?
3. Had the Rowleys agreed to a deal with Dimmick, they would have consented to doing something illegal. A contract to do something against the law voids the contract.
4. Even if the Rowleys agreed to a deal with Dimmick they did so under duress, voiding the contract.
Dimmick, that old optimist that he is, nevertheless is continuing with his lawsuit. The Rowleys' lawyer filed a motion to dismiss on November 4, so we'll see where that goes.