I hope Moore loses this suit or be wins a modest amount.
The last thing we need is former players go after the league for damages incurred while playing.
Show me where getting chased down the ice, sucker punched and piledriven into the ice is just "playing". Oh, and AFTER the attacker's team made public threats against the victim.
Hell, if this was just "playing", you should have no trouble pointing to the numerous other incidents like this in league history.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Just a question, what is the Moore camp's position on this? Is it that Bertuzzi committed a crime on the ice (assault)? I only ask because if it is just under the idea that Bertuzzi ended his career which could have gone on much longer and thus he is entitled to his potential earnings, I feel like it may set a slippery precedent. Many players careers are ended by injuries, are they all entitled to compensation?
There is no question that Bertuzzi committed a crime. He pled guilty to one, in fact. This lawsuit exists under the idea that Bertuzzi's criminal act directly caused everything you mention.
I hope Moore loses this suit or be wins a modest amount.
The last thing we need is former players go after the league for damages incurred while playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Show me where getting chased down the ice, sucker punched and piledriven into the ice is just "playing". Oh, and AFTER the attacker's team made public threats against the victim.
Hell, if this was just "playing", you should have no trouble pointing to the numerous other incidents like this in league history.
Just a question, what is the Moore camp's position on this? Is it that Bertuzzi committed a crime on the ice (assault)? I only ask because if it is just under the idea that Bertuzzi ended his career which could have gone on much longer and thus he is entitled to his potential earnings, I feel like it may set a slippery precedent. Many players careers are ended by injuries, are they all entitled to compensation?
If it is a result of a POS ####### assaulting you from behind, then yeah you are entitled to compensation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
I don't think the crime thing matters, civil court is not the same thing. You get injured by someone else's actions you will get compensated. Even if it is a slippery slope, maybe it is the right thing, if you have a life altering injury in any other job you will get paid. Not sure if players sign a waiver or if a waiver is even legal when playing in the league.
Also, and FWIW, it sometimes takes a lawsuit to force an insurance company to pay up. That is usually why you see the odd apparently stupid lawsuit where a child sues their parents over injuries caused in a crash. It's not the parents they are usually going after, but the insurance company.
$350,000, according to all the news reports I've seen. Remember, the NHL's offer was conditional on Moore signing away the right to sue. Bertuzzi and the Canucks would have been off the hook, and Moore would have got less than a year's salary to make up for the loss of his career.
Most, if not all, offers include "signing away the right to sue".
It's called a release, and no one pays any amount without a release executed. Unless they either have a terrible lawyer, or don't have a lawyer at all, and are stupid.
If he can prove liability, Moore will be awarded whatever amount he is able to prove he lost by not being able to continue his hockey career (my guess, is an average 3rd line player's earnings for the duration of an average 3rd liner's career during that period), plus an award for any inability to earn post-hockey. I do not know what the effect has been on him in that regard. I.e. Can he concentrate enough to be able to work?
In addition, he will receive General Damages for the actual, physical pain and suffering. The latter will likely be around $150,000.00-200,000.00. General Damages in Canada are not very high. Eg. If you are rendered a quadriplegic from an MVA, the most you can get for General Damages is under $400,000.00.
As far as an "example" being made, those are exemplary damages, which in Canada are generally rare and low. Punitive damages are for a punishment of the offender. Again, in Canada these are generally low.
In order to prove liability, he will have to prove that the action was not the sort of action that a professional hockey player is potentially likely to suffer in the ordinary course of a game. Personally, I feel he will be able to meet this hurdle.
If he does, then Bertuzzi will be liable. If Bertuzzi is liable, the Canucks/Orca Bay will almost certainly be found liable, unless they are able to establish Bertuzzi's actions were either so far outside the ordinary course of his employment that they could not possibly have expected it to have happened. If Crawford "recommended" Bertuzzi do this, then the Canucks/Orca Bay will likely be liable as well.
That's my two bits.
The Following User Says Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
If it is a result of a POS ####### assaulting you from behind, then yeah you are entitled to compensation.
My dad had a POS crosscheck him from behind into the boards which resulted in a broken arm, which resulted in his early retirement a couple years later. He has had debilitating shoulder and back problems. Should he be suing the NHL?
Obviously a completely different situation, but when it comes to viewing it from a legal perspective, its essentially the same idea. Many many players have had their careers ended by injuries. Does this allow Marc Savard to go after Matt Cooke in retirement? I'm not arguing that it shouldn't, but it seems like everyone could be suing everyone under this.
Just a question, what is the Moore camp's position on this? Is it that Bertuzzi committed a crime on the ice (assault)? I only ask because if it is just under the idea that Bertuzzi ended his career which could have gone on much longer and thus he is entitled to his potential earnings, I feel like it may set a slippery precedent. Many players careers are ended by injuries, are they all entitled to compensation?
You don't bring criminal charges in civil suits. Moore would be brining a civil suit for assault and battery leading to damages. They're definitely going to be going after Loss of Earning Potential.
You're right though it's definitely a slipping slope. In this case, however, we have an attack that was:
1) Not related to the play at all;
2) With intent to injury; and
3) Not consented to (as oppossed to a fight).
So you might see suits for things like a Brashear/McSorley play. Keep in mind McSorley was already found criminally guilty for assault.
The grey area would be in instances with knees on knees or similar plays. The question really becomes whether the courts are willing to extend injury into reckless/negligent plays. I doubt will see that, and the Bertuzzi incident was so deliberate that it shouldn't really touch on that. Instead, it'll probably set a ruling confined to intentional tort.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
My dad had a POS crosscheck him from behind into the boards which resulted in a broken arm, which resulted in his early retirement a couple years later. He has had debilitating shoulder and back problems. Should he be suing the NHL?
Obviously a completely different situation, but when it comes to viewing it from a legal perspective, its essentially the same idea. Many many players have had their careers ended by injuries. Does this allow Marc Savard to go after Matt Cooke in retirement? I'm not arguing that it shouldn't, but it seems like everyone could be suing everyone under this.
Could he not sue him for assault?
In hockey you assume a certaing degree of risk. If he was crosschecked during a play, that's a pretty commong thing and part of the risk. If he was skating behind the play and got randomly crosscheked in the back, your dad would have a pretty solid case.
I'm guessing that Moore gets nothing. I have not seen anything that shows any reason to believe that the major injury was not sustained in the pileup. A gloved hand punch to the helmet of a player on the move isn't going to cause the injury. IMO, what everyone claims to be Bertuzzi driving moores head into the ice, is much more likely to be Bertuzzi trying to grab Moore after the punch, but Moore stumbled/was falling enough to bring Bertuzzi off balance and fall on top of Moore, and just had his hands in an awkward place. Since what I'm describing would look very similar to the more common belief, the trouble is proving it either way. If Bertuzzi says he just lost Balance, you simply don't have any evidence to refute it. After that, you have the pile on, which almost certainly where the neck injury happened, that or Bertuzzi falling awkwardly on top of Moore.
For Moore to get anything, you might have to prove both Bertuzzi's intent, and the point of the worst injury to Moore, very certainly one of those. Frankly, I don't see evidence of either thing being possible.
I'm guessing that Moore gets nothing. I have not seen anything that shows any reason to believe that the major injury was not sustained in the pileup. A gloved hand punch to the helmet of a player on the move isn't going to cause the injury. IMO, what everyone claims to be Bertuzzi driving moores head into the ice, is much more likely to be Bertuzzi trying to grab Moore after the punch, but Moore stumbled/was falling enough to bring Bertuzzi off balance and fall on top of Moore, and just had his hands in an awkward place. Since what I'm describing would look very similar to the more common belief, the trouble is proving it either way. If Bertuzzi says he just lost Balance, you simply don't have any evidence to refute it. After that, you have the pile on, which almost certainly where the neck injury happened, that or Bertuzzi falling awkwardly on top of Moore.
For Moore to get anything, you might have to prove both Bertuzzi's intent, and the point of the worst injury to Moore, very certainly one of those. Frankly, I don't see evidence of either thing being possible.
You only need to prove intent towards the action, not the outcome. Bertuzzi clearly intended to punch Moore. From that point on, unless you can prove that what happened next was either too unforseeable or too remote, anything beyond that point flows from the punch.
I bet Moore gets a large pay day.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
In hockey you assume a certaing degree of risk. If he was crosschecked during a play, that's a pretty commong thing and part of the risk. If he was skating behind the play and got randomly crosscheked in the back, your dad would have a pretty solid case.
I was more using it as an example for how far it could slip. People sue grocery stores for slipping in the isle, and win. Sue Hershey's for having too good of chocolate, and win. Sue McDonald's for too hot coffee, and win. It doesn't seem out to lunch that this could end up with similar laughable cases.
Also what about the judge? Would you need one with knowledge of the game since you're suing within the rules of a game that involves a lot of rough play?
I was more using it as an example for how far it could slip. People sue grocery stores for slipping in the isle, and win. Sue Hershey's for having too good of chocolate, and win. Sue McDonald's for too hot coffee, and win. It doesn't seem out to lunch that this could end up with similar laughable cases.
Well firstly, the hot coffee at McDonalds issue was not a laughable matter. That lady required several skin grafts, had third degree burns to much of her body, and was in the hospital for weeks.
Secondly, there are fairly well defined rules already in place to stop things from slipping. I think there's a clear difference between being injured in the regular course of play and having someone come up behind you outside of a play and sucker punch you.
Edit: I see the worry about the sliding slope. However, the Bertuzzi incident was so blatant and far off the charts, there's no slide.
Last edited by blankall; 10-25-2013 at 06:14 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I agree there's obviously a huge difference. I'm just thinking of the types of loopholes lawyers will try to find to get it to the point of ridiculous.
I'm guessing that Moore gets nothing. I have not seen anything that shows any reason to believe that the major injury was not sustained in the pileup. A gloved hand punch to the helmet of a player on the move isn't going to cause the injury. IMO, what everyone claims to be Bertuzzi driving moores head into the ice, is much more likely to be Bertuzzi trying to grab Moore after the punch, but Moore stumbled/was falling enough to bring Bertuzzi off balance and fall on top of Moore, and just had his hands in an awkward place. Since what I'm describing would look very similar to the more common belief, the trouble is proving it either way. If Bertuzzi says he just lost Balance, you simply don't have any evidence to refute it. After that, you have the pile on, which almost certainly where the neck injury happened, that or Bertuzzi falling awkwardly on top of Moore.
For Moore to get anything, you might have to prove both Bertuzzi's intent, and the point of the worst injury to Moore, very certainly one of those. Frankly, I don't see evidence of either thing being possible.
You are wrong. Bertuzzi drives him violently into the ice. The dogpile argument is nonsense.
I agree there's obviously a huge difference. I'm just thinking of the types of loopholes lawyers will try to find to get it to the point of ridiculous.
And damn, that's some hot coffee.
And after the trial, McDonald's adjusted the temperature of their coffee.
I'm guessing that Moore gets nothing. I have not seen anything that shows any reason to believe that the major injury was not sustained in the pileup.
Not relevant. Everything that happened afterward was a direct result of Bertuzzi's assault. Even if you want to pretend that Bertuzzi didn't drive Moore into the ice (and it doesn't matter if it was malice or negligence), all of Moore's injuries are therefore a direct result of Bertuzzi's assault.
Your argument is kind of like sucker punching someone on the street and claiming it was actually that person's head hitting the cement that caused any injury, therefore you are not responsible.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
