Ferland Trial

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by wwkayaker

It is truly amazing just how much ignorance is out there. Compound fracture=broken in two, lol.

So sorry Dr.Wwkayaker. Jerk-off. Compound fracture = bone protruding through skin, therefore it is a complete fracture. Tell me, orthopedic specialist, how you can have an incomplete fracture that is a compound fracture?

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

An open fracture, also called a compound fracture, is an injury that occurs when there is a break in the skin around a broken bone. In order for an injury to be classified as a compound fracture, the outside air (and dirt and bacteria) must be able to get to the fracture site without a barrier of skin or soft-tissue. Therefore, a bone does not need to be through the skin in order for the injury to be called a compound fracture.

Okay, I wrongly assumed he meant it broke the skin. My bad. Incomplete vs. complete #.

[theoforever]

This is like Doogie Howser M.D and CSI all in one.

[Drury18]

Jury deliberations to start today in Ferland trial: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...347/story.html

Also, looks like the accuser is suing the bar that the incident happened in for over-serving Ferland.

The Cochrane Hotel also is being sued in the same statement of claim for continuing to serve Ferland alcohol after he was already intoxicated.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Drury18

Jury deliberations to start today in Ferland trial: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...347/story.html

Also, looks like the accuser is suing the bar that the incident happened in for over-serving Ferland.

So its everybody's fault except his own.

[MisterJoji]

The Cochrane Hotel also is being sued in the same statement of claim for continuing to serve Ferland alcohol after he was already intoxicated.

Bahahahahahaha!!! Good luck with that. If that was the rule no bars would exist.

[Fuzzy14]

It's going to be amazing when he loses all three of these suits and has to pay all his legal fees. Karma's a bitch.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Bahahahahahaha!!! Good luck with that. If that was the rule no bars would exist.

I think it's more the fact very rarely do these sorts of things come up in court as most times, both parties are at fault and it rarely goes past a lawyer consultation. That's what also makes me believe that Ferland's "celebrity" is the motivating factor for this case and even the lawyer taking it.

There are actually laws and regulations around over-serving patrons as well as ensuring that people on the premises are protected from intoxicated people. I believe that's why anyone working with alcohol has to take the ProServe course so that they learn the signs and all that to protect themselves and the workplace from liability.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/business_insura..._liability.asp

While I know this is a BC website (since Alberta's ProServe one is very "pay to learn" based) I believe the laws and liability in Alberta are similar. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers might be able to give more Alberta specific information: http://www.servingitright.com/alcoho...ppendix_2.html

I believe the fact that Ferland was drinking at their establishment that they could potentially say it was the establishments fault for serving him an excess of liquor which caused him to allegedly strike the accuser. Could also claim that as it happened on the bar premises, that they did not take proper care/security to ensure the safety of the patrons.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Bahahahahahaha!!! Good luck with that. If that was the rule no bars would exist.

Umm....that is the rule. Not only can bars be held responsible for over-service, homeowners can as well.

[ignite09]

Man, I hope this trial is over by Sept. This guy really needs a fresh start this year in a few aspects of his life. Really needs to be fully healthy, and 100% focused on reaching the next level in his developement.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Man, I hope this trial is over by Sept. This guy really needs a fresh start this year in a few aspects of his life. Really needs to be fully healthy, and 100% focused on reaching the next level in his developement.

Haha, they are deliberating right now, I'm thinking it will be over by happy hour today so September is a safe bet.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

Haha, they are deliberating right now, I'm thinking it will be over by happy hour today so September is a safe bet.

Even if he's found not guilty, there is a civil suit which could drag on for years.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I think it's more the fact very rarely do these sorts of things come up in court as most times, both parties are at fault and it rarely goes past a lawyer consultation. That's what also makes me believe that Ferland's "celebrity" is the motivating factor for this case and even the lawyer taking it.

There are actually laws and regulations around over-serving patrons as well as ensuring that people on the premises are protected from intoxicated people. I believe that's why anyone working with alcohol has to take the ProServe course so that they learn the signs and all that to protect themselves and the workplace from liability.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/business_insura..._liability.asp

While I know this is a BC website (since Alberta's ProServe one is very "pay to learn" based) I believe the laws and liability in Alberta are similar. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers might be able to give more Alberta specific information: http://www.servingitright.com/alcoho...ppendix_2.html

I believe the fact that Ferland was drinking at their establishment that they could potentially say it was the establishments fault for serving him an excess of liquor which caused him to allegedly strike the accuser. Could also claim that as it happened on the bar premises, that they did not take proper care/security to ensure the safety of the patrons.

My step-father in law (70 years old) was driving through Bowness and happened to hit a drunk woman that stumbled out on the street out in front of him. It was dark and about 12 midnight. She died.

Her daughters, who had been estranged to the 60 year old woman for some years, tried to sue him, as well as the bar that served her, because she was an alcoholic, and the bar didn't 'cut her off early enough.' They also claimed emotional damages although they hadn't seen her in over 10 years.

The case was thrown out pretty fast.

Good luck trying to sue a licensed establishment for providing business to a customer they are known for and open for. I understand the recognition of knowing when to cut a patron off, but ethics also come into play for allowing a grown adult autonomy over their decisions. In most cases, it won't stand as an argument, especially if the patron is able to walk and communicate under their own power.

[442scotty]

After many years of dealing with these kinds of complaints I'm positive he will be found not guilty. Lots of reasonable doubt. Not to mention comments to the Police that he was not entirely without fault. As for the civil suit, good luck with that.. Not going anywhere.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

My mother in law told me she got contusions from her car accident. She insisted the doctor told her they were much worse than a bruise

Thanks it really made me laugh.

Do she do the fancy cryotherapy?

[shogged]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Even if he's found not guilty, there is a civil suit which could drag on for years.

if he is found not guilty, the civil suit is pretty much toast.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Umm....that is the rule. Not only can bars be held responsible for over-service, homeowners can as well.

Interesting, but I can't even count the number of times I was served alcohol at bars, while I was already drunk. Back in my younger days mind you. Are you saying that the bar would've been liable every time? It would seem like after around midnight or so, 90% of the people who are getting drinks at bars have already been drinking up until then.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thanks it really made me laugh.

Do she do the fancy cryotherapy?

This will really make you laugh. She got bitten by her cat, and that's all she talked about for two weeks over the phone. It was such a bad bite they had to give her antibiotics! (Every car bite gets antibiotics per protocol). Five weeks later we visit the in laws and she has a globe on her hand. Her hand was cold now due to nerve damage

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Interesting, but I can't even count the number of times I was served alcohol at bars, while I was already drunk. Back in my younger days mind you. Are you saying that the bar would've been liable every time? It would seem like after around midnight or so, 90% of the people who are getting drinks at bars have already been drinking up until then.

It very rarely gets used. My guess is that it's there for the extreme cases of over service and something really bad happens ie. drunk driver ends up killing people.

It is one of the reasons you don't see as many full open bars for weddings, Christmas partys, etc anymore. If you host a full no limit open bar and somebody gets hosed and kills somebody, the person or company throwing the party can be held responsible. Most are now free drinks before dinner, two drink tickets, a tooney bar or something similar.

[greentree]

Originally Posted by shogged

if he is found not guilty, the civil suit is pretty much toast.

OJ Simpson...although that was in litigious-happy USA.