An attorney informed a court of appeals this week that those in Michael Jackson's staff had no responsibility to keep children away from the singer.
The lawyer made it clear that these employees did not have any legal obligation to safeguard minors from the celebrity, according to a report by Page Six.
Contesting a judgment from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in California, lawyer Jonathan Steinsapir argued on behalf of the Michael Jackson estate against two men who alleged that they had been sexually abused by the singer when they were children.
The court appeared to be leaning towards reviving lawsuits previously thrown out due to insufficient evidence.
Steinsapir declared that, according to the court's thought process, "staff members must challenge their supervisor and refer to them as pedophiles." But Holly Boyer, who represents Wade Robson and James Safechuck, contended that employees needed to take on such a responsibility.
Explaining the need for stringent measures, Boyer addressed the three-judge panel in a videoconference hearing: "The safety of children must be put above all else when it comes to these types of matters. This is especially true when discussing 7- and 10-year-old children, who lack the skills to defend themselves against someone like Michael Jackson."
She continued by stressing that "the organization must take appropriate steps to prevent such abuse from occurring."
According to Boyer, those in charge had an obligation, not only to guard and warn the boys, but they failed to do so.
In 2009, the "Billie Jean" hitmaker passed away, but it wasn't until 2013 that Robson and 2014 Safechuck filed suit.
The public wouldn't learn of their stories until the 2019 HBO documentary entitled "Leaving Neverland" was released to wide acclaim.
In 2021, the legal cases were rejected by the judge who deemed that due to Jackson being both the sole owner and single shareholder of both MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., these corporations did not possess similar protective qualities as an institution like The Boy Scouts or church would have for children in their custody.
According to Steinsapir, the evidence collected from current cases that have not yet gone to trial indicates that the parents had no expectations of Jackson's staff acting as supervisors.
In particular, a deposition from Robson's mother demonstrated she was unaware of any companies related to Jackson when she first brought her seven-year-old child into contact with the pop star.
Steinsapir pointed out the fact that Michael Jackson's employees were not looked upon to protect his victims from him. Instead, it was up to those who had been hurt by him to find refuge elsewhere.
Steinsapir dismissed the claim that the corporations were responsible for negligent hiring in the lawsuit, commenting that it was illogical to hold them accountable when it was their alleged perpetrator who made the hire. He insisted that this decision by the court was absurd.
Addressing the court's focus on the responsibilities of companies, Steinsapir pointedly queried "Doesn't a person with potential criminal leanings have an obligation to not hire himself?"
Despite this being solely about legal obligations and not proven facts, he characterized the allegations as untrue.
At the age of 5, Robson encountered Jackson who was to have a profound influence on his life. 40-years later, now a successful choreographer, he appeared in three of the superstar's music videos.
Yet his world came crashing down when he sued claiming that Jackson had sexually abused him over seven years.
The lawsuits faced by Robson and his fellow men had already been dismissed in 2017, with a judge ruling out the possibility due to the statute of limitations.
However, compliance with a new California law - one that widened the threshold for sexual assault cases - resulted in their cases being restored on appeal.
Interestingly enough, Jackson's estate was thrown out as a defendant back in 2015.
READ MORE: Selena Gomez 'Rift' With Kidney Donor Francia Raisa Officially Over After Sweet IG Tribute?
