Quote:
Originally Posted by old-fart
No, it doesn't - unless we are talking about different things (which is possible).
Moore's camp will claim based on average NHL player career which includes all manner of reasons folks no longer play the game. Bertie's camp can not suggest (or at least they'd be silly to suggest) a lower settlement based on the fact they think Moore might have gotten hit by lightning the next day.
If Moore's camp was suggesting he would have played in the NHL until he was 44 yrs old then I'd agree they'd be stupid and 'potential injuries' would come into play.
I'm sure one of our resident lawyers can correct me but I suspect Moore's claim for $65M included all of:
1) Lost earnings from his NHL career. This would be based on his current status with the Avs at the time of the attack, his salary, the expected rise in salary and the average length of career in the NHL along with average salary. I'm sure Bertie/Nuck lawyers would argue that Moore was below average, would have probably had a short career and wasn't very good.
2) Lost earnings from post-NHL career. Already discussed somewhat.
3) Pain and suffering.
4) Punitive damages, although I think these are pretty much non-existent in Canada.
|
I think that is about right. Not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that the compensation should be the net present value of expected future earnings, with a relatively small amount attributable to pain and suffering and likely nothing in the way of punitive damages. Doesn't sound like the settlement will be made public, but it would be interesting to hear the details.
Edit: That should be net present value of lost earnings. It is still possible that he can do something to mitigate the losses. Also, I suppose it is possible that there is a real material loss that relates to pain and suffering, if there are actual medical expenses associated with his condition.