Don Henderson files $10.25 million law suit against Dennis Wideman and the Flames

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You might be right in a criminal court, but standards are different in civil law. IANAL FWIW.

I think he means it doesn't matter if it's intent or negligence because a guy with a brain injury can't form intent nor (arguably) be negligent. The standard of proof of either is the same, you are correct there.

The only difference is that I think you would get some punitive damages for an intentional act (but not like you'd get in the US). The Flames and Wideman are pretty lucky this is a Calgary case.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Contingency fees sound good in principle but they often don't work very well in practice. The lawyers work hard at getting you to sign up, then don't work that hard because they aren't getting paid on a regular basis, and encourage settlement to get some money in the door, sometimes too early.

I don't do this at all, and I never have in any of the firms I've worked at, even when it adds to my own financial stress.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The only difference is that I think you would get some punitive damages for an intentional act (but not like you'd get in the US). The Flames and Wideman are pretty lucky this is a Calgary case.

Intention isn't a sufficient basis for punitive damages. They sound sexy, but are rarely, rarely awarded. Dix v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 ABQB 580 at 637 (which is still good law, AFAIK):

1. Punitive charges are very much the exception rather than the rule;
2. They are imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary, or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour;
3. Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff, and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant;
4. Regard should be had to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question;
5. Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation;
6. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff; but:
7. They are provided to give a defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community's collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened;
8. Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages, which to some extent are punitive, are insufficient to accomplish these objectives; and:
9. They are given in an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose;
10. Punitive damages are kept by the Plaintiff as a "windfall"; and:
11. Judges and juries in our system have usually found that moderate awards of punishment, which inevitably carry a stigma in the broader community, are generally sufficient.

[Ducay]

I know nothing of the underlying laws or case law, or anything legal for that matter. But I will say I'd love to see Henderson get a decent settlement. You can't just cross check the linesman to oblivion and expect no financial retribution. Who cares if he was planning to retire. Guy got absolutely destroyed and was never compensated for that risk.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Intention isn't a sufficient basis for punitive damages. They sound sexy, but are rarely, rarely awarded. Dix v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 ABQB 580 at 637 (which is still good law, AFAIK):

1. Punitive charges are very much the exception rather than the rule;
2. They are imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary, or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour;
3. Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff, and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant;
4. Regard should be had to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question;
5. Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation;
6. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff; but:
7. They are provided to give a defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community's collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened;
8. Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages, which to some extent are punitive, are insufficient to accomplish these objectives; and:
9. They are given in an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose;
10. Punitive damages are kept by the Plaintiff as a "windfall"; and:
11. Judges and juries in our system have usually found that moderate awards of punishment, which inevitably carry a stigma in the broader community, are generally sufficient.

Gee thanks for the lesson. FYI, I've been a litigator for over 20 years. Maybe that's why referred to punitive damages being an American windfall only. But you should realize that intention will be step in getting some, even in Canada.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Gee thanks for the lesson. FYI, I've been a litigator for over 20 years. Maybe that's why referred to punitive damages being an American windfall only. But you should realize that intention will be step in getting some, even in Canada.

Well sorry then counsel, I defer to your awesomeness. My apologies for trying to be helpful. I guess I must have been mistaken in interpreting your comment that "I think you would get some punitive damages for an intentional act" meant that you figured he would get some punitive damages for an intentional act, not that it would be a "step in getting some".

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Gee thanks for the lesson. FYI, I've been a litigator for over 20 years. Maybe that's why referred to punitive damages being an American windfall only. But you should realize that intention will be step in getting some, even in Canada.

If you really have been a litigator for 20 years then that seriously worries me. The wordings in your posts are very confusing.

[MikeN]

Originally Posted by Racki

For what it's worth, I have a good friend that knows Henderson well. He has been telling you for sometime that this was coming. I didn't really believe him, guess I was wrong.

He also told me Henderson wasn't exactly beloved amongst his officiating brethren. That's why I questioned the validity of the "Wideman affect"

Agreed, I have also heard this from people that know him. They had a alot of not so nice things to say about him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If you really have been a litigator for 20 years then that seriously worries me. The wordings in your posts are very confusing.

It seems that posts in a forum aren't the same as oral or written submissions. So that's good.

Then again, some times confusion is a two way street.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

The standard is on a balance of probabilities.

Is that not exactly the same thing as "preponderance of the evidence"?

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Is that not exactly the same thing as "preponderance of the evidence"?

I suppose, technically, but I've never heard it referred to as anything other than the balance.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I know nothing of the underlying laws or case law, or anything legal for that matter. But I will say I'd love to see Henderson get a decent settlement. You can't just cross check the linesman to oblivion and expect no financial retribution. Who cares if he was planning to retire. Guy got absolutely destroyed and was never compensated for that risk.

Same here. Hope he gets paid.

[stang]

Tried to stay out, and not going to get into the whole "if it was on purpose" thing.

However, I don't really care if he was retiring the next day and already had his whole pension figured out. Sounds like he's in a lot of pain and might be in pain for the rest of his life. I would never want to live the rest of my days like that. I hope he gets compensated. Some of you have to stop worrying about what his possible future earnings might be and start thinking of quality of life.

I'd pay 10 mil to not live my retirement with back and neck issues.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by stang

Tried to stay out, and not going to get into the whole "if it was on purpose" thing.

However, I don't really care if he was retiring the next day and already had his whole pension figured out. Sounds like he's in a lot of pain and might be in pain for the rest of his life. I would never want to live the rest of my days like that. I hope he gets compensated. Some of you have to stop worrying about what his possible future earnings might be and start thinking of quality of life.

I'd pay 10 mil to not live my retirement with back and neck issues.

Except the law compensates very differently for pain than it does for loss of future income. They're separate considerations and are assessed separately. It is extremely relevant if he intended to retire, because then he is not foregoing any income as a result of the injury. Wideman only has to compensate for the losses he actually caused.

[Kjesse]

Nm

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Is that not exactly the same thing as "preponderance of the evidence"?

That's more of a US phrase. I suppose it's pretty much the same thing as balance of probabilities.

[DionTheDman]

http://www.tsn.ca/flames-ask-judge-t...wsuit-1.791749

The Calgary Flames have asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by NHL referee Don Henderson against defenceman Dennis Wideman and the team.

In an application filed June 26 in Calgary court and obtained by CTV News reporter Chris Epp, the Flames said NHL commissioner Gary Bettman believes the dispute should be resolved in arbitration, as stated in the terms of the league’s constitution.

[StrykerSteve]

Just end already.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Just end already.

He has a right too compensation. Getting leveled from behind isn't part of the job description.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by ignite09

He has a right too compensation. Getting leveled from behind isn't part of the job description.

No argument here. Compensate him and move on.