When an Airbnb Stay Becomes a Crime Scene: How the Marble Arch Stabbing Exposes the Platform’s Negligent-Vetting Failure
A 27-year-old woman named Kamonnan Thiamphanit — friends knew her as Angela — answered the door at her own home near Marble Arch in central London. She had rented out a room through Airbnb to a young man who presented himself as a student traveling for a month. Within hours of his arrival, investigators say, she was found with multiple stab wounds across her body and a large silver knife protruding from the side of her neck.
The guest, Enzo Bettamio, was 16 years old at the time. He had flown from Los Angeles and booked a single Airbnb room near one of the busiest intersections in London. Within roughly 13 hours of checking in, he was in a taxi to Heathrow with a one-way ticket to Dubai. He was 18 when British authorities extradited him back in April 2026; a jury trial is now set for February 1, 2027 in London.
We are writing this page for Angela’s family, for the families in similar circumstances, and for the public that has a right to know what the law says when a platform’s own rules are broken and a host dies. The criminal case will run in the Old Bailey. The civil accountability — who pays the family, and on what legal theory — runs in a different courthouse and follows a different set of rules. This is our analysis.
Who We Are and Why This Page Exists
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. Our senior trial team includes Ralph Manginello, who has spent more than 27 years in courtrooms including federal court, began his career as a journalist, and now fights for people whose lives have been broken by corporate negligence; and Lupe Peña, a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside the rooms where claims are priced and denied, and now uses that knowledge for injured people and grieving families. We do contingency work: 33.33% before trial, 40% at trial, and you pay nothing unless we win. Free consultation, 24/7 live staff. Hablamos Español.
We write this page because a 27-year-old woman should not be dead because a 16-year-old child was able to book a room in her home. We write it because Airbnb’s own policies prohibit bookings by anyone under 18 — and those policies were written precisely because the company knew the risk. We write it because the next family deserves to know what questions to ask, what evidence exists, and what civil rights the law gives them even when the criminal case is moving slowly.
What the Public Record Tells Us About the Incident
The facts below are taken from contemporaneous court reporting and the Crown’s opening at the recent Central Criminal Court hearing. We have not invented or assumed any of them. Where we are inferring a legal duty from these facts, we say so.
On April 5, 2024, a 16-year-old dual citizen of Brazil and Italy — described in court as an international kart racer — flew from Los Angeles to London. He used Airbnb to book a room at a property near Marble Arch, the busy Hyde Park Corner junction in the City of Westminster, for what was supposed to be a one-month stay. He checked in.
Within hours, according to prosecutors, Angela Thiamphanit — known to friends as Angela — was attacked in her own home. She had been playing board games with friends earlier that night, then left in the early hours of April 6, telling them there was an “emergency” at her house. An Uber dropped her off at 4:24 a.m. She was last seen alive then.
She was found with “multiple stab wounds all over her body” and a large silver knife protruding from her neck. A post-mortem confirmed her death was caused by multiple sharp force injuries.
Roughly 13 hours after checking in, the teenage guest was in a taxi to Heathrow Airport with a ticket to Dubai. He boarded the flight and was not seen again in the United Kingdom for nearly two years. Angela’s friends reported her missing two days after she was last seen alive. Metropolitan Police later found her body in the home she had rented to him.
He was extradited from the United Arab Emirates on April 24, 2026 — a man by then, having turned 18 in the interim. He appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court by video link, confirmed only his name, date of birth, and address, and was remanded in custody by Judge Simon Mayo. A plea hearing is set for July 14, 2026. A provisional trial date has been set for February 1, 2027.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson later acknowledged the force had been contacted twice by Angela’s friends the day before her body was discovered. London’s Metropolitan Police referred itself to the independent police watchdog after her disappearance was initially graded as a lower-level missing person inquiry. The lead investigator, Detective Chief Inspector Alison Foxwell, said in a statement: “I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Angela’s family and friends for their patience and unwavering support to the investigation, throughout what has been an incredibly difficult and distressing time for them.”
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. We list the basic facts here not to relitigate the criminal case but because the civil case against the platform depends on them.
Why an Airbnb Murder Case Is a Civil Case Against the Platform, Not Just a Criminal Case Against the Killer
A grieving family is right to ask: the killer is being prosecuted, so what is left? The answer is the part almost no one talks about — the civil liability of the company whose platform put the killer in the home. The criminal trial answers who did this. The civil trial answers who is responsible for letting it happen — and, often, who pays the family for the rest of their lives.
In the United Kingdom, where Angela’s death occurred, the civil case is governed by two statutes the public rarely hears about:
“If death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect, or default which is of such a character as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case, the person who would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured.”
— Fatal Accidents Act 1976, § 1(1) (United Kingdom)
In the United States — where Airbnb is incorporated, headquartered, and where any civil case against the company for negligent platform design can be filed — federal civil-rights law and state negligence law create a parallel, often stronger, set of remedies. We will discuss both.
The point is the same in either jurisdiction: a person who hosts travelers in their own home is owed a duty of care by the platform that selects, vets, and assigns those travelers. When a platform’s own age and safety rules are not enforced, and a host dies as a result, the platform can be held civilly responsible — separately from any criminal liability of the killer.
The Platform’s Own Rules: How the Negligent-Vetting Theory Works
Airbnb’s published Terms of Service require the person booking a stay to be at least 18 years of age. The policy has been in effect for years. It is not aspirational; it is the company’s own binding rule. The platform also purports to verify identity through a process that, in its own marketing, is presented as a meaningful trust and safety step.
Those rules exist because the company has long known the categories of risk that follow when a minor books lodging intended for adults. A 16-year-old cannot enter into a binding contract in most jurisdictions. A 16-year-old does not have the credit history, employment record, or verifiable adult references that the platform’s own check is designed to surface. And a 16-year-old travelling alone across an ocean, with no verifiable adult contact on the platform, sits at the intersection of several foreseeable dangers: exploitation, exploitation-by-recruitment, and violence.
This matters legally because the law of negligent vetting — in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in most common-law jurisdictions — does not turn on whether a host is a customer or a user. It turns on whether the company undertook to screen the people it placed in the home. Airbnb did. It promised to do it. Its own terms require the booking person to be an adult. The platform took a fee from the minor, approved the booking, and assigned the minor to Angela’s home.
The legal theory is straightforward. When a company sets up a screening process, markets that process to users as a safety feature, and charges a fee in exchange for placing strangers in private homes, the company owes a duty to perform that screening with reasonable care. When the company ignores its own age policy — when a 16-year-old books a long-term stay without anyone on the platform noticing — the company has not performed that screening with reasonable care. When a host dies as a result, the company is civilly liable.
This is the theory we bring. It is supported by the company’s own policies, by the public statements it makes to hosts about safety, and by the basic principle that a company cannot collect a fee for a service it promises to provide and then perform that service negligently.
The International Booking and the Cross-Border Dimension
A 16-year-old booked a one-month stay in central London from Los Angeles. This fact alone triggers several distinct lines of inquiry that the platform’s screening process should have caught:
-
Age verification. A 16-year-old cannot legally hold a credit card in his own name in most jurisdictions. The payment instrument used in the booking — a credit card, a debit card, a PayPal account — was either in someone else’s name or in a name the platform failed to verify against an independent age database. Either way, the platform’s own “18+” rule was not enforced.
-
Solo-minor international travel. A 16-year-old alone, crossing an ocean, with no adult contact on the platform profile, with no destination host family named, with no school or program affiliation — every one of those data points is a known red flag for recruitment of minors and for trafficking. The platform processes millions of bookings; red flags cannot justify a stop-the-booking decision in every case. But the absence of any red-flag check at all is, in itself, a failure.
-
Length of stay and destination mismatch. A month-long stay in central London for a teenager with no stated purpose is a booking that should not have been approved as a routine consumer transaction. The platform offers different products for different categories of stay; the choice of an ordinary short-term rental product for a 16-year-old alone is itself a vetting failure.
Each of these facts is a separate question for which the platform will be asked to produce documentation. Why was the booking approved? What verification was run on the payment method? What cross-check was run against the guest’s stated age? What was the platform’s risk score for this booking? What was the booking’s destination type and length? Did any human look at this booking before it was confirmed? The platform’s answers to those questions are evidence — and they are evidence the company controls.
What the Evidence Clock Looks Like in a Case Like This
The records that decide these cases die on different clocks, and they die fast. We do not wait to send preservation letters. We send them the same day a family calls.
Airbnb booking and identity records. The platform holds the entire booking record: the guest profile, the payment instrument used, the stated age at the time of booking, the IP address and device used, any communication with the host, and any internal risk or trust score. The platform’s own retention policy for this data is internal, not statutory, and the company is not legally required to keep it indefinitely. A litigation hold letter must go out immediately to require the company to preserve the entire record for the guest profile, the booking, the host’s communications, and any internal risk or trust review.
Airbnb’s internal communications and policy records. The company’s own internal training materials, its host-safety communications, its trust-and-safety team meeting minutes, its age-verification policy documents, and any internal email or Slack thread discussing the booking or its category — these are all relevant and all are subject to routine deletion cycles inside the platform. Without a preservation demand, they can be purged in days to weeks. We send the demand now.
London Airbnb host records. The host’s account history, prior reviews, prior incident reports, prior complaints about this specific guest, and any other property the host operated all exist on the platform. We preserve them.
CCTV, key-card, and door access data for the property itself. Most central London residential properties do not have full CCTV coverage, but where cameras exist — hallway cameras, building-entry cameras — the footage overwrites on a rolling loop. We send a preservation letter to the building management within days of engagement.
Metropolitan Police records. The Met’s own investigation, including the missing-person report timeline, the dispatch records, and the upgrade of the case to a homicide, are obtainable through the criminal disclosure process. The Crown Prosecution Service disclosure materials, the booking photographs, the forensic photographs of the scene, and the post-mortem report will all become part of the public record at trial.
Uber and airline records. Angela’s Uber drop-off time and location, the Uber account the guest used, the Heathrow taxi records, the airline booking, and the Dubai itinerary are all obtainable. The clock on most of these is governed by ordinary commercial-retention practice, but each can be demanded under a litigation hold.
The Airbnb property itself. The room that was rented, the condition of the door locks, the layout of the home, and the proximity of the room to the host’s living space are all part of the physical-evidence record. We engage a forensic architect or private investigator to document the property before any renovation or re-listing.
The point of an evidence-preservation program is not to be obsessive. It is to make sure that when the time comes to argue in a courtroom that the platform failed to enforce its own 18+ rule, the platform cannot quietly point to a missing record. The 72 hours after a crisis are when evidence is set, and when evidence is set, it survives or it does not. The day a family calls us, our first action is the preservation letter.
Insurance-Adjuster Playbook: Three Plays to Expect, and How We Counter Each One
When a corporate defendant is sitting on a civil claim involving a guest killed in a host’s home, the defense team is running a playbook. We have seen every page of it, because Lupe Peña spent years on the other side of these cases.
Play One: “Our user, our rules — but our vetting met industry standards.” The platform will argue that its age-verification process is the industry standard, that it catches the vast majority of attempts to book as a minor, and that no system is perfect. The counter is that the platform’s own rule was 18+, that the rule was designed precisely to prevent this kind of case, and that the rule failed here. Industry-standard evidence is admissible and useful, but it does not absolve a company whose own rule was broken. The question the jury will answer is not whether the platform is the best at catching minors; the question is whether this platform, in this case, did what it promised the host it would do.
Play Two: “The criminal trial is the proper forum; civil discovery should wait.” The platform will argue that civil discovery should be deferred until the criminal case resolves, on the theory that civil discovery could compromise the criminal prosecution. The counter is that civil discovery can be structured to avoid that — protective orders, redactions of witness-identifying information, and staged scheduling are all available. The family has its own right to civil discovery, and a defendant’s interest in delaying the civil case is not the family’s interest. We push for parallel proceedings with appropriate safeguards.
Play Three: “The killer is the only responsible party; the platform is a neutral conduit.” The platform will argue it is a marketplace that merely matches hosts and guests, not a participant in the relationship between them. The counter is the platform’s own marketing, its own safety promises, its own fee structure, and its own age-verification policy. The platform has spent years telling hosts that they are protected by the platform’s safety features. The platform cannot promise a safety feature to attract hosts and then disclaim the feature when it fails. That is the most fundamental principle of negligent-misrepresentation and negligent-vetting law.
There is a fourth play we watch for: the platform’s lawyers may try to characterize any civil recovery as duplicative of a criminal restitution award. That argument has limited legal weight and does not defeat a civil claim, but we expect it and answer it with the principle that a tortfeasor is not released from civil liability by a separate criminal proceeding against a different wrongdoer.
Damages: What a Life Like Angela’s Is Worth in Civil Law
We do not give a single number in a case like this, because the law does not give a single number. We build a damages case category by category, with documentation and expert support, and we present it to the trier of fact. Below are the categories we work with in a case like Angela’s, framed in terms the family can understand. We never use the word “speculative” to describe a future cost; we prove it with the life-care planner, the forensic economist, and the treating-physician record.
Angela’s pre-death pain and suffering. Under English law, a survival action on behalf of the estate can recover for the conscious pain and suffering Angela experienced between the attack and her death. In a US jurisdiction, the same recovery is available under most state survival statutes. The duration matters, and so does the medical record of the conscious interval.
Loss of financial support to the family. Angela was 27. She was working. The civil case recovers the financial support she would have provided to her dependents over her working life. The forensic economist uses published worklife tables, the BLS Current Population Survey, and Angela’s actual earnings record to project the loss. In a case like this, the loss is measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over a normal working lifetime.
Loss of services. Angela’s family is entitled to recover the economic value of the unpaid work she did in and for the household — childcare, cooking, care of an aging parent, household management, the hundred small jobs that keep a family running. For a working 27-year-old, this number is often larger than people expect.
Loss of consortium and companionship. The law in most jurisdictions recognizes the family’s right to recover for the loss of the relationship itself — the birthday dinners, the phone calls, the Sunday mornings, the advice. This is a non-economic category, but it is real and recoverable, and it is usually the most meaningful number to the family.
Funeral and final-expense recovery. Recoverable as a matter of course.
Punitive damages. Available in the United States for egregious conduct; rarely available in England. In the United States, punitive damages are designed to punish a company whose conduct shows conscious disregard of a known risk. A platform that has a written 18+ rule, that markets itself as a safety-conscious service to hosts, that charges a fee in exchange for vetting, and that nonetheless approved a 16-year-old for a one-month stay in a private home — that is the kind of fact pattern a jury considers when deciding whether punitive damages are appropriate.
The family’s recovery will not bring Angela back. It will not undo the phone call that no longer comes in. The civil case exists because the law recognizes that when a company fails to do what it promised, the family is entitled to be made as whole as money can make them, and to send a message to every other company that the rules it writes are not optional.
Where a Civil Case Can Be Filed: UK Proceedings, US Proceedings, and the Choice
A family in this situation has choices about where the civil case runs, and the choice matters.
United Kingdom. The natural forum is the United Kingdom, where the death occurred and where the criminal case is being tried. UK wrongful-death claims are brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 by the personal representative of the deceased on behalf of the dependent family members. The limitation period is three years from the date of death, or three years from the date of knowledge of the cause of death if later, with discretion in the court to extend. The standard of proof in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities, lower than the criminal standard. A family that waits too long forfeits the right to sue, which is why we advise early engagement.
“An action under this Act may not be brought after the expiration of three years from the date of death, except where the court is satisfied that it would be just and reasonable to allow a further period for bringing the action, and that the circumstances of the case are such that the applicant could not reasonably have commenced the action within that period.”
— Fatal Accidents Act 1976, § 2(1), as amended (United Kingdom)
United States. If the platform is a US company with a US headquarters and US servers that processed the booking, US courts may take jurisdiction. California’s courts, in particular, have long been hospitable to platform-liability claims under theories of negligent design and negligent vetting, and California is where Airbnb is headquartered. The advantage of US proceedings is broader discovery, the availability of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and the absence of the UK’s caps on non-economic damages. The disadvantage is the time and expense of litigating in a foreign jurisdiction and the need to engage US counsel with the right experience. We work with UK local counsel on a pro hac vice basis when a case is filed in the United States.
The choice is not either/or. A family can pursue proceedings in one or both jurisdictions, subject to the doctrines of forum non conveniens and res judicata. We map the options clearly before the family commits to a forum.
How the Civil Case Interacts with the Criminal Case
A frequent question from families is whether filing a civil case will interfere with the criminal prosecution. The answer is no, when the cases are managed properly. Criminal and civil proceedings run on parallel tracks. The civil discovery process can be structured with protective orders to avoid compromising criminal witnesses. The criminal conviction, when it comes, will have preclusive effect in a civil case under the doctrine of collateral estoppel in the United States, and the family can rely on the criminal finding as conclusive on the issue of the killer’s liability.
In Angela’s case, the criminal trial is set for February 1, 2027. The civil case can be filed now, with discovery stayed or paced to accommodate the criminal trial, so that the family is in position to obtain a civil judgment as soon as possible after the criminal verdict. We do not wait for the criminal case to resolve before we move.
The “No Determination of Responsibility” Discipline and What It Means for How We Talk About This Case
We hold ourselves to a discipline that we wish the press would adopt. When we cite a corporate safety record, an internal document, or a regulatory finding, we say what the source is and what it actually says. We do not present a regulatory record as proof of fault. We do not present a criminal indictment as proof of civil liability. We do not present a Facebook post or a Twitter thread as evidence of anything.
When we say a platform’s vetting failed, we mean the platform did not perform the screening it promised to perform, in light of facts that a reasonable person would have noticed. We do not mean the platform is automatically liable for every crime committed by one of its users. We mean the platform is civilly responsible for the specific harm that flowed from its specific failure to perform the specific function it held itself out as performing. That is a narrower and more defensible claim, and it is the claim we make.
This is the standard we apply to ourselves, and the standard we apply to every corporate defendant. We will not over-promise. We will not over-claim. We will build the case the way a careful, principled civil trial team builds it, and we will not settle for less than the family is owed.
What We Will Not Promise
We will not promise a specific dollar amount. We will not promise a specific outcome. We will not promise that the criminal case will resolve in a particular way. We will not promise that the platform will settle. We will not promise a quick resolution.
What we will promise is this: we will investigate, we will preserve the evidence, we will build the proof story, we will identify every defendant who bears a share of responsibility, and we will pursue the case with the same care and intensity that Ralph Manginello has brought to every case for 27 years and that Lupe Peña brings to every case he has turned from the inside out.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
This is the truth of every case we accept. It is not a disclaimer; it is the operating principle. The result depends on the facts, the evidence, the law, the jurisdiction, the judge, the jury, the witnesses, the experts, and the work.
Why Families Call Us, and What Happens When You Do
When a family calls us about a case like Angela’s, we do three things in the first 24 hours. We send the preservation letters to the platform, the booking platform, the host, the building, and any other data custodian. We open a secure communication channel for the family, with confidentiality built in. We begin the intake process to identify every potential defendant and every applicable statute of limitations, because in a case like this, the deadlines are real and the wrong calendar kills a meritorious case.
From there we build. We engage investigators in the United Kingdom and in the United States to document the property, the booking record, and the platform’s compliance with its own policies. We engage the medical and forensic experts to build the damages case. We engage a forensic economist to project the lifetime financial loss. We engage UK local counsel for the UK proceedings and prepare the US complaint for the US proceedings. We work in parallel.
The first call is free. The consultation is confidential. We do not get paid unless we win. That is not a slogan; that is the structure of the retainer. No fee unless we win. If we do not recover for the family, the family does not owe us a fee. If we do recover, our fee is a percentage of the recovery.
We do not charge by the hour. We do not bill for copies or phone calls. We do not send monthly invoices that make a grieving family feel like they are paying to grieve. The work is funded by the outcome, and the outcome belongs to the family.
The Single Most Important Step a Family Can Take This Week
If you are a family member reading this page because someone you love was killed in a short-term rental, the single most important thing you can do this week is to call us before you call the platform, before you sign anything the platform’s insurer sends you, before you agree to any interview, before you post anything about the case on social media, before you accept any settlement offer of any size. Every one of those steps is reversible. None of them is a substitute for early legal advice.
The platform’s insurer will likely contact you within days. The investigator they send will be friendly. The check they offer may look large. None of that is bad faith on their part; it is what they do. But the friendly call is the beginning of a recorded statement, and the early check is the beginning of a release. We can be on the call with you, and we can review the release before you sign it, and we can give you the honest read of whether the offer is fair in light of the law.
Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. We are available 24 hours a day, every day. The first conversation costs you nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can bring a wrongful-death claim after a fatal Airbnb attack in the UK?
Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, a claim is brought by the personal representative of the deceased on behalf of dependent family members. The eligible dependents are defined by the statute and typically include the spouse or civil partner, children, and parents. A claim by an unrelated friend or unmarried partner is generally not available, though there are limited exceptions. The limitation period is three years from the date of death, with discretion to extend in cases of delayed knowledge. The sooner a family member consults counsel, the more options are preserved.
What is the difference between the criminal case and the civil case in a fatal Airbnb attack?
The criminal case is brought by the state against the accused killer. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The remedy is criminal punishment, including imprisonment. The civil case is brought by the family against the platform, the host, the property owner, and any other entity whose conduct contributed to the death. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The remedy is monetary compensation. The two cases run on parallel tracks. A criminal conviction will be admissible in the civil case and will have preclusive effect on the issue of the killer’s liability.
Can we sue Airbnb itself for an attack by an underage guest?
Yes, in many cases. The legal theory is negligent vetting, negligent design of the booking system, and breach of the platform’s own published age policy. The platform publishes an 18+ rule, markets safety features to hosts, and charges a fee in exchange for screening. When the screening fails because the platform approved a booking by a 16-year-old, the platform can be civilly liable for the harm that flowed from that failure. The right forum depends on the facts and the applicable law.
What if our family member was in the United States, not the UK?
The same legal principles apply, with different procedural rules. Every US state has its own wrongful-death statute, and the standard of care owed by a platform to a host is well established. The forum question is critical — California, where Airbnb is headquartered, is often the most favorable forum for these cases. The US proceedings allow broader discovery, the availability of punitive damages for egregious conduct, and damages that are not subject to the UK’s statutory caps.
How much does a wrongful-death case against Airbnb cost to bring?
We work on a contingency fee. We advance the costs of investigation, experts, and filing. Our fee is 33.33% of the recovery before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The family owes us nothing if we do not win. The first consultation is free, and we never charge for the initial intake.
How long do these cases take?
A UK case under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 must be filed within three years of the date of death, but most cases resolve within 18 to 36 months of filing. A US case can take 24 to 48 months from filing to resolution. The timeline depends on the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, the court’s docket, and whether the case settles or goes to verdict. We move as quickly as the evidence and the law allow.
What evidence do I need to preserve right now?
The single most important thing is to send a preservation letter to the platform within days of engaging counsel. The platform’s booking records, the guest’s profile, the host’s communications, the internal risk-scoring documents, and the company’s policy-compliance records are all in the platform’s control and can be lost if not preserved. The criminal case evidence is preserved by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The family’s own records, the medical records of the deceased, and the financial records of the deceased should be preserved by the family with our help.
Can we get punitive damages against Airbnb in the US?
Potentially, yes. US courts have awarded punitive damages against platforms whose conduct shows conscious disregard of a known risk. The platform’s own age policy, its marketing of safety features to hosts, and its failure to enforce the policy in this case are the kind of facts that support a punitive damages claim. The exact availability depends on the state in which the case is filed. UK law does not generally allow punitive damages in wrongful-death cases.
What is the role of the host in the civil case?
The host is a potential defendant. The host’s duties include securing the property, screening guests, and reporting suspicious behavior. The host’s insurance may provide an additional source of recovery. The host’s conduct in the days and hours leading up to the death is part of the investigation.
What if Airbnb tries to blame the host for failing to verify the guest’s age?
Airbnb may try that argument. The platform’s response will be that the platform took a fee to perform the screening, the platform’s own rules require the guest to be 18, and the platform is the party that actually verified the booking. The host relied on the platform to perform the screening. The platform cannot disclaim the function it charges for.
How do I know if my family member’s case qualifies?
Call us. The first call is free and confidential. We will listen, ask the right questions, and give you an honest read. If we are not the right firm for your case, we will tell you who is. We do not take every case that calls, and we do not pretend to be the right fit for every kind of claim.
Will the criminal case outcome affect the civil case?
In the United States, a criminal conviction is conclusive on the issue of the killer’s liability in a later civil case under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In the United Kingdom, the position is more nuanced, but a criminal conviction is strong evidence in a civil case. The civil case does not depend on the criminal verdict. The civil case is brought against the platform and other entities, not against the killer. The civil case can proceed even if the criminal case is delayed, dismissed on a technicality, or results in an acquittal on grounds unrelated to the underlying conduct.
What if we live in a different country from where the death occurred?
The forum question is critical. We work with local counsel in the relevant jurisdiction on a pro hac vice basis. The choice of forum depends on the location of the death, the location of the parties, the location of the evidence, and the substantive law that will apply. We map the options with you and recommend a path.
What if we cannot afford to hire a lawyer?
You do not need to afford one. We work on contingency. The first call is free. The consultation is confidential. The fee is taken from the recovery. If we do not win, you owe us nothing. We do not charge for the initial intake. We do not charge by the hour.
What if the killer is acquitted at trial?
An acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily defeat the civil case. The civil case has a lower standard of proof. The civil case is brought against the platform, not the killer. The family has a right to civil recovery for the platform’s own negligence regardless of the criminal verdict.
What if the platform tries to force us into arbitration?
Many platform terms of service include an arbitration clause. The enforceability of those clauses in wrongful-death cases is contested, and the result depends on the jurisdiction and the specific terms. We will evaluate the arbitration clause as part of the intake. In many cases, an arbitration clause does not prevent a family from filing a civil action in court. The family has rights regardless of what the platform’s terms say.
What if the platform’s insurer contacts us first?
The platform’s insurer will likely contact the family within days of the death. The investigator they send will be friendly. The early check they offer may look large. None of that is bad faith. But the early check is the beginning of a release, and the friendly call is the beginning of a recorded statement. We can be on the call with you, review the release before you sign it, and give you the honest read of whether the offer is fair. Call us before you call them back.
What if we do not have the resources to pursue a case in the United States?
We do not ask the family to fund the case. We advance the costs. We do not get paid unless we win. If we determine that the most favorable forum is the United States, we will explain why and recommend the path. If the most favorable forum is the United Kingdom, we will work with local UK counsel.
What does a wrongful-death case cost the family out of pocket?
Nothing. We advance the costs. We do not get paid unless we win.
How do I get in touch with you right now?
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. We are available 24 hours a day, every day. The first consultation is free and confidential. We will listen, ask the right questions, and give you an honest read. If we are not the right firm for your case, we will tell you who is. Hablamos Español. Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña lead our catastrophic-injury and wrongful-death team, and we have the experience, the resources, and the will to take a platform to trial if that is what the case requires.
Related Practice Areas
- Wrongful Death Claims
- Brain Injuries
- Workplace Accident Representation
- Insurance Claim Disputes
- All Practice Areas
Meet the Trial Team
Watch: How Contingency Fees Work
Schedule Your Free Consultation
- Contact Attorney911 — 1-888-ATTY-911 — Free, confidential, 24/7. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.