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

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Yoho

This isn't a murder case, don't they just need reasonable grounds?

For criminal cases, the Crown must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". This being a civil proceeding, the standard for proof is "preponderance of evidence".

[DionTheDman]

The standard is on a balance of probabilities.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

The standard is on a balance of probabilities.

Well if its being determined by an NHL referee then the evidence is inconclusive and the call on the ice stands.

[schteve_d]

Strange, and probably stupid, offshoot question that popped into my head while reading this thread: If a person is awarded a large sum of money in a lawsuit like this, do they claim the net received amount, after lawyers are paid and everything else, as income on their taxes?

Totally irrelevant to this discussion, I know, but curious anyway. I would suspect they would have to.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by MBates

I do not disagree that claiming patently absurd amounts is bad form...but the point is it is bad legal practice as you have said.

Do you disagree that an insurance company could be filing this in Henderson's name and he may have had literally no say in what number the lawyer chose to put in?

People are literally posting here that Henderson's character can be judged by this piece of paper and all he might have had to do with it was he has submitted an insurance claim and collected some benefits from the policy.

A few points:

-Henderson should not be attacked for his lawyer putting a silly number in. He does deserve compensation, there is no doubt he was injured and he shouldn't have been injured.
-It gives me pause to criticize the strategy of the inflated number now that we know who filed the claim, he's a great lawyer and very experienced. But I'm certainly surprised.
-I am almost certain that this is not a subrogated claim by the insurer, but even if it were, there is no reason for the $10 million loss of income claim. It is not justifiable on even the best possible scenario.

Consider his absolute highest damages scenario: Let's say he earns $300K US per year (which he doesn't, probably half that) and that he would work in the NHL as a linesman for another 15 years (which he wouldn't), and using a very generous US/Can conversion, you could argue he has a $6M Canadian loss.

But then you have to take into account the present value and the discount rate, which will reduce the actual award accordingly.

[Yanda]

It looked to me like henderson went down like a soccer player.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Riiiight cause in that millisecond reaction, he figured he'd be able to sue a player and organization for ten million dollars 14 months later?

Let me guess he was trying to draw a penalty?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Yanda

It looked to me like henderson went down like a soccer player.

It looked to me like he went down like a guy that didn't see a hit coming from an angry hockey player.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Consider his absolute highest damages scenario: Let's say he earns $300K US per year (which he doesn't, probably half that) and that he would work in the NHL as a linesman for another 15 years (which he wouldn't), and using a very generous US/Can conversion, you could argue he has a $6M Canadian loss.

But then you have to take into account the present value and the discount rate, which will reduce the actual award accordingly.

Unless his claim has nothing to do with working with or in the NHL.

[powderjunkie]

These Wideman incident threads are so insane.


It was a freak scenario. How often is a player returning to his own bench from his defending zone (long change at that) while the rush is coming back towards him from the far end? Pretty much never.

Wideman's actions in the seconds preceding and following the collision in no way support an 'angry' theory. Unless you think calling for a change with your stick and weakly "slamming" (for lack of a better word) it back on the ice, then gliding on one foot for 2 seconds before the collision is what an angry guy would do. Autopilot motion of raising your stick to be vertical in one hand so you can get off the ice, just like you've done a million other times in your career. In the midst of this motion, the 'freak accident' part comes into play - on ice participants aren't normally skating back in your direction as you're about to step off the ice.

But then we see Dennis really wind up and clock him, like an angry guy, right? It looks unlike just about any 'cross check' i've ever seen, but I'll grant that it wasn't the ideal reaction. Plenty of reasonably explanations though - your hands are full of your stick...makes it hard to hug the guy.

So now that this vile, reprehensible, calculating, villain of a man has carried out his devious plan while seeing the red mist, one might expect he would huff and puff with an angry look on his face. Or maybe he's such a devious psychopath that he knows to keep skating to the bench like he barely knows what just happened, and sit there hunched over for a few seconds, and then with an essentially blank expression (I might go so far as foggy-eyed, but I would hope we can all agree there was no anger on his face...perhaps mild frustration at most).

I'm almost certain I remember seeing video of Wideman and Henderson chatting after the incident. Not that it means Henderson can't/shouldn't sue. But IMO it does support the 'accident' theory.


Nobody in the building thought it was real issue until after the game, when the infamous gif surfaced, Francis stirred the pot, and a bunch of sheeple found a way to vindicate their pathetic lives by further denigrating a player they've collectively decided is ruining their favourite hockey team because he eats up salary cap space and isn't playing as well as the previous year. I guarantee the reaction here would have been vastly different if the incident involved Giordano, Monahan, or Wideman 1 year earlier.

Okay, now that last sentence was overflowing with snark and full of assumptions (and is mostly tongue-in-cheek). Occam's razor might not support that sentence, but I think it does apply to the rest of my analysis. Most of y'all are making bold assumptions to Wideman's state of mind (ie. angry) - I contend he acted exactly as one would expect him to after being plastered into the boards. Wideman set his path to the bench before Henderson really started skating backwards. The situation simply came towards him (and IMO Wideman didn't react at all until .25 seconds before they collided).

I'll also pose Hanlon's Razor here: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". I won't pretend to know the inner-workings of Wideman's mind, but it seems a lot more probable to be that he was on fuzzy autopilot mode (ie. incompetent) than angry vengeance mode (ie. malicious) based on everything I've posted above.

[powderjunkie]

I'll also add that my defence of Wideman is no way exclusive to feeling bad for Henderson. I think he has every right to seek compensation. Ideally, it would be resolved via WCB/insurance, but I'm not going to condemn a guy for trying to make chicken salad out of chicken ####.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

These Wideman incident threads are so insane.


It was a freak scenario. How often is a player returning to his own bench from his defending zone (long change at that) while the rush is coming back towards him from the far end? Pretty much never.

Wideman's actions in the seconds preceding and following the collision in no way support an 'angry' theory. Unless you think calling for a change with your stick and weakly "slamming" (for lack of a better word) it back on the ice, then gliding on one foot for 2 seconds before the collision is what an angry guy would do. Autopilot motion of raising your stick to be vertical in one hand so you can get off the ice, just like you've done a million other times in your career. In the midst of this motion, the 'freak accident' part comes into play - on ice participants aren't normally skating back in your direction as you're about to step off the ice.

But then we see Dennis really wind up and clock him, like an angry guy, right? It looks unlike just about any 'cross check' i've ever seen, but I'll grant that it wasn't the ideal reaction. Plenty of reasonably explanations though - your hands are full of your stick...makes it hard to hug the guy.

So now that this vile, reprehensible, calculating, villain of a man has carried out his devious plan while seeing the red mist, one might expect he would huff and puff with an angry look on his face. Or maybe he's such a devious psychopath that he knows to keep skating to the bench like he barely knows what just happened, and sit there hunched over for a few seconds, and then with an essentially blank expression (I might go so far as foggy-eyed, but I would hope we can all agree there was no anger on his face...perhaps mild frustration at most).

I'm almost certain I remember seeing video of Wideman and Henderson chatting after the incident. Not that it means Henderson can't/shouldn't sue. But IMO it does support the 'accident' theory.


Nobody in the building thought it was real issue until after the game, when the infamous gif surfaced, Francis stirred the pot, and a bunch of sheeple found a way to vindicate their pathetic lives by further denigrating a player they've collectively decided is ruining their favourite hockey team because he eats up salary cap space and isn't playing as well as the previous year. I guarantee the reaction here would have been vastly different if the incident involved Giordano, Monahan, or Wideman 1 year earlier.

Okay, now that last sentence was overflowing with snark and full of assumptions (and is mostly tongue-in-cheek). Occam's razor might not support that sentence, but I think it does apply to the rest of my analysis. Most of y'all are making bold assumptions to Wideman's state of mind (ie. angry) - I contend he acted exactly as one would expect him to after being plastered into the boards. Wideman set his path to the bench before Henderson really started skating backwards. The situation simply came towards him (and IMO Wideman didn't react at all until .25 seconds before they collided).

I'll also pose Hanlon's Razor here: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". I won't pretend to know the inner-workings of Wideman's mind, but it seems a lot more probable to be that he was on fuzzy autopilot mode (ie. incompetent) than angry vengeance mode (ie. malicious) based on everything I've posted above.

Solid,but need more Razors

Hume's razor: "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."
Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

Strange, and probably stupid, offshoot question that popped into my head while reading this thread: If a person is awarded a large sum of money in a lawsuit like this, do they claim the net received amount, after lawyers are paid and everything else, as income on their taxes?

Totally irrelevant to this discussion, I know, but curious anyway. I would suspect they would have to.

Generally court awards for damages are non-taxable.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Generally court awards for damages are non-taxable.

Pretty sure damages for loss of income are taxable as income. Personal injury damages would not be.

Edit...

Appears that is not the case...credit to Delgar for setting me straight on that

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

These Wideman incident threads are so insane.

But then we see Dennis really wind up and clock him, like an angry guy, right? It looks unlike just about any 'cross check' i've ever seen, but I'll grant that it wasn't the ideal reaction. Plenty of reasonably explanations though - your hands are full of your stick...makes it hard to hug the guy.

or Wideman could have simply collided with the ref like you would have it that was your team mate maybe? raise his stick up to protect himself sure... it was the hard follow through that was the problem...

The NHL suspended this guy for 20 games! 20! People act like its some that happens all the time... it does not.

Find me one other incident. One. Where a player does something remotely like that to an official, where the puck isn't even close to either of them...

I definitely agree with the first part of you post though

[Soulless Sisters]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The loss of 10 million in future earnings seems a little off considering he was retiring.

Lol yep. What a disingenuous claim.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

or Wideman could have simply collided with the ref like you would have it that was your team mate maybe? raise his stick up to protect himself sure... it was the hard follow through that was the problem...

The NHL suspended this guy for 20 games! 20! People act like its some that happens all the time... it does not.

Find me one other incident. One. Where a player does something remotely like that to an official, where the puck isn't even close to either of them...

I definitely agree with the first part of you post though

I would dispute the hard follow through - but whatever it is, it's weird. Watch the clip in .25 speed on youtube. It's sort of a weird double pump - both of his arms are partly extended when they first make contact, and he only pulls back his right a bit and pushes away again (his left arm does it a bit, too, but not as much). I also think it looks like Wideman's head is turned more towards the Nashville player with the puck coming towards them as the contact happens, but it's hard to tell because his whole body is twisting (to get out of the way IMO most probably). The puck is within 1 meter of both Wideman and Henderson within one second of the collision.

Not sure how you convict a guy based on 0.5 seconds of 'weird' body motion when there is essentially zero other evidence that demonstrates intent, malice, or anger.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Delgar

A few points:

-Henderson should not be attacked for his lawyer putting a silly number in. He does deserve compensation, there is no doubt he was injured and he shouldn't have been injured.
-It gives me pause to criticize the strategy of the inflated number now that we know who filed the claim, he's a great lawyer and very experienced. But I'm certainly surprised.
-I am almost certain that this is not a subrogated claim by the insurer, but even if it were, there is no reason for the $10 million loss of income claim. It is not justifiable on even the best possible scenario.

Consider his absolute highest damages scenario: Let's say he earns $300K US per year (which he doesn't, probably half that) and that he would work in the NHL as a linesman for another 15 years (which he wouldn't), and using a very generous US/Can conversion, you could argue he has a $6M Canadian loss.

But then you have to take into account the present value and the discount rate, which will reduce the actual award accordingly.

You are assuming Henderson's only source of income is from reffing in the NHL. It's possible he has a business on the side that will suffer as well.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The loss of 10 million in future earnings seems a little off considering he was retiring.

He is retiring from the NHL. If he has another business that is making $300-400k a year, and can't run it anymore it's not that far fetched to believe he will lose $10 million over his lifetime.

His injuries are real and we don't know any details to think his future earnings potential is off.

[MarkGio]

I'm more interested in the repercussions will be between the officials and the player's union. Imagine if Gaudreau files a lawsuit against the officials who "ignored" several slashing incidents that resulted in broken bones.