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

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by dino7c

His career was already over "by all accounts"

if that is the kinda evidence we are going for

asking for 10M has me questioning his motives...replace these guys with a camera and a chip in the puck

What motive do you need?

The innocent guy was attacked by a millionaire and is now trying to get some justice in the form of financial compensation. Good for him. He should be looking for the highest payday possible...you sure would be.

Don't try to argue if Wideman unprovoked attacked you and broke your neck, you would be happy with a couple bucks to pay for your surgery if you knew you had the opportunity to cash in on the goon and the team that supported him.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

CTV - Chris Epp‏Verified account @CTVchrisepp
Henderson also says Wideman was "aware that (he) remained unsuspecting and was completely defenceless" and that he "disregarded NHL rules"

CTV - Chris Epp‏Verified account @CTVchrisepp
Henderson says Wideman cost him ten million in lost/future income and earning capacity. #flames have not filed statement of defense yet

I highly doubt Henderson would have earned 10 million dollars more if Wideman hadn't hit him

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dino7c

His career was already over "by all accounts"

if that is the kinda evidence we are going for

asking for 10M has me questioning his motives...replace these guys with a camera and a chip in the puck

His motives are obvious: Most lawsuits like this end up in negotiated settlements. He's starting high to give room to negotiate down to a number he hopes to get.

There's nothing ulterior about this. You'd be doing the exact same thing if you ended up in something approaching Henderson's situation.

[Aegypticus]

Isn't all the talk about whether or not Wideman meant to do what he did kind of beside to point? I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I didn't think intent was necessary to establish civil liability. If I accidentally back my car into yours, am I not still liable for the damages?

I'm just tired reading the same rehashed arguments, especially when I'm not sure that the truth of his intent really matters here.

Of course, I could be dead wrong on all of this.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I know, and that's horsecrap. Unless, of course, the AB government names itself a plaintiff in every single such lawsuit. I can't think of any legitimate reason why the government has any part of this.

Yeah, I think it's the normal course of action where there is private insurance that should be paying for medical on a jobsite not covered by WCB for whatever reason.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

my point: Maybe Wideman shouldn't have assaulted a guy for absolutely no reason at all

your point: NHL should get rid of linesmen

ummmm ok

Lol. Not my point but alright.

There's never "no reason" why these things happen. If you got disabled at work and spent two or more days in the hospital, there's legislative mandates to uncover those reasons as to what happened. It's called the OH&S Act, Regulation and Code. And if your boss told you to jump in to an arena full of tacklers and shooting pucks, what do you think the provincial officer would first ask? Why the #### were you there to begin with?

Using the heirarchy of Elimination --> Engineering --> Administrative --> PPE controls (which I'm sure you heard of) how would you go abouts preventing Mr. Henderson's injury? Well, ask yourself the question an officer would ask.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Officials have been laid out, hit by pucks, tripped, fallen over, and even punched throughout the course of the game, many times over. They're even given helmets to "protect them" from the hazard of the job. I think there's enough evidence that there's a knowing risk you can get bulldozed by a player.

I mean it's kind of intuitive. There's 8 players skating around in an enclosed area on a slippery surface trying to hit each other and shoot a flying projectile around and you're stuck in the middle. Like no #### you're eventually going to get hit. They even have rules to keep people off the ice for their own safety.

Not going to argue the merits of what defines an assault on the ice, but there have been plenty of cases where police have intervened and laid charges against players in other rec leagues for actions no different than what Wideman did.

As for the notion of 'acceptance of risk', there's risk inherent in the game and risk that is outside of the game and the linesman wasn't even close to the play...

When compared to the Bertuzzi/Moore incident i am curious whether you see this as being somehow different? I see it being worse, even though Moore's injuries were worse, as one was a player woth whom there was a history... the other was an official with zero reason to expect anything like that to happen... this wasn't a bump, a check, a puck to the face: it was a vicious crosscheck to an unsuspecting officials back....

Since this will most likely go to the courts, barring some out of court settlement, i'll let it play out there

[Robbob]

The other thing is, out of his injuries, how many are from the event and how many are from wear and tear of being a linesman for 20 odd years. Also seems weird that the government is piling on trying to get medical bills paid from the event.

Seems like a weird precedent to try to set. Would that not open up every person at fault that injured someone in a fight/accident/etc that the government would try to recoup costs? Or any play where a player is suspended and he injuries another player that requires any medical services (ambulance, hospital etc). Seems kind of weird to me, where do you draw the line.

i guess some outside the box thinking for a new stream of revenue.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The other thing is, out of his injuries, how many are from the event and how many are from wear and tear of being a linesman for 20 odd years. Also seems weird that the government is piling on trying to get medical bills paid from the event.

Seems like a weird precedent to try to set. Would that not open up every person at fault that injured someone in a fight/accident/etc that the government would try to recoup costs? Or any play where a player is suspended and he injuries another player that requires any medical services (ambulance, hospital etc). Seems kind of weird to me, where do you draw the line.

i guess some outside the box thinking for a new stream of revenue.

Precedent has been set a long time ago. Workplace injuries receive compensation even with preexisting conditions. If you break your back working at McDonald's and then 3 years later sprain it while working at Burger King, you still receive compensation and both McDonald's and Burger King see an increase in premiums.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The other thing is, out of his injuries, how many are from the event and how many are from wear and tear of being a linesman for 20 odd years. Also seems weird that the government is piling on trying to get medical bills paid from the event.

Seems like a weird precedent to try to set. Would that not open up every person at fault that injured someone in a fight/accident/etc that the government would try to recoup costs? Or any play where a player is suspended and he injuries another player that requires any medical services (ambulance, hospital etc). Seems kind of weird to me, where do you draw the line.

i guess some outside the box thinking for a new stream of revenue.

IMO, there's no actual precedent being set here. There are aspects of participating in a hockey game that are acknowledged as being risks you agree to take. For officials, that does include getting hit by pucks, getting caught in incidental collisions, even getting punched trying to break up a fight.

But there are still incidents that fall so far out of the accepted boundaries of the game that the actions remain actionable in civil or criminal courts. Bertuzzi, as one example, crossed that line. Henderson is alleging that Wideman did also.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Rick Westhead‏Verified account @rwesthead
In NHL linesman Don Henderson’s lawsuit vs Calgary Flames and Dennis Wideman, the Alberta govt is also listed as a plaintiff.

Rick Westhead‏Verified account @rwesthead
AB govt wants Wideman and Flames to cover cost of Henderson’s dental surgery, optometric, mental health, chiropractic, podiatrist services.

THANKS NDP

It would be interesting to know if the Alberta Gov't (likely not the political (ie NDP) part of it, but the pragmatic, legal part) generally tries to collect in other situations. One of those would be a non-work-related incident that is attributable to neglect. Say a car hits a person negligently. Does AB Health try to collect back from the car driver's insurer the cost of medical care? If so, the claim above seems reasonable from a policy point of view. (The joining as a plaintiff - not the amount of course.)

[MBates]

People need to settle down especially about things you don't understand.

A Statement of Claim is, at the best of times, an estimate based on things you might be able to prove. Some lawyers / litigants are more creative than others, but often you have to err on the side of including something rather than risk not being able to claim for it later.

The Alberta government as a plaintiff thing is mandated in law and happens all the time:

http://www.health.alberta.ca/about/t...liability.html

And it makes perfect sense really. If the Alberta Health Care system paid out tons of our cash to fix up someone who was hurt by a responsible third party, then why should Alberta taxpayers be out the money and not the responsible third party or his insurers?

As for the Flames, once again it is basic. Employee injures someone while on the job and carrying out employment duties there will usually be vicarious liability to the employer.

Hard to know for sure if the Flames will defend by saying Wideman was not acting in the course of his employment (ie went rogue and attacked a linesman was not his duties that evening) but there are often major insurance policies making the decisions in the name of the insureds so I wouldn't make too much of what is in pleadings either way.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

I highly doubt Henderson would have earned 10 million dollars more if Wideman hadn't hit him

He could have chronic pain and/or surgeries to pay for. If my quality of life was impacted by an injury caused by someone else I would certainly want compensation for that not just lost wages.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Not going to argue the merits of what defines an assault on the ice, but there have been plenty of cases where police have intervened and laid charges against players in other rec leagues for actions no different than what Wideman did.

As for the notion of 'acceptance of risk', there's risk inherent in the game and risk that is outside of the game and the linesman wasn't even close to the play...

When compared to the Bertuzzi/Moore incident i am curious whether you see this as being somehow different? I see it being worse, even though Moore's injuries were worse, as one was a player woth whom there was a history... the other was an official with zero reason to expect anything like that to happen... this wasn't a bump, a check, a puck to the face: it was a vicious crosscheck to an unsuspecting officials back....

Since this will most likely go to the courts, barring some out of court settlement, i'll let it play out there

The very same Don Henderson has been unexpectedly bulldozed by players on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS before the Wideman incident and he KNOWINGLY continues to come to work, yet you're claiming there's no acceptance of risk to being unsuspectingly hit?!?

Jesus man, either Don Henderson is clinically slow and is not capable of knowing about the risks he frequently encounters or you just can't believe it. I'm not sure which is worse.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

It would be interesting to know if the Alberta Gov't (likely not the political (ie NDP) part of it, but the pragmatic, legal part) generally tries to collect in other situations. One of those would be a non-work-related incident that is attributable to neglect. Say a car hits a person negligently. Does AB Health try to collect back from the car driver's insurer the cost of medical care? If so, the claim above seems reasonable from a policy point of view. (The joining as a plaintiff - not the amount of course.)

They do sometimes, and there is consistently dialogue between insurers and government when negligence causes large health costs. Where there is no insurance, the government is rarely involved.

But WCB is a special kind of animal because they work for not just the government, but also every workplace and worker covered by it - so they make sure work-related injuries have a high-priority for clarification, even when not covered by WCB.

[Burninator]

I wonder why the NHL isn't named in the lawsuit? They were his employer and they have deep pockets. I thought in these types of cases the plaintiff casts a wide net?

[DionTheDman]

I practice this area of law for a living, and reading people's misinformed comments here and elsewhere about this claim is giving me a headache.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

The very same Don Henderson has been unexpectedly bulldozed by players on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS before the Wideman incident and he KNOWINGLY continues to come to work, yet you're claiming there's no acceptance of risk to being unsuspectingly hit?!?

Jesus man, either Don Henderson is clinically slow and is not capable of knowing about the risks he frequently encounters or you just can't believe it. I'm not sure which is worse.

I seriously don't know how you could possibly make the case that getting cross checked from behind away from the play by one player is an acceptable risk of a ref. I can think of only one case where this happened and it's this one. A hockey rink is a dangerous place but it's not the wild west where anything goes.

[Clarkey]

The guy finished reffing the game in yet he allegedly has this laundry list of injuries.

Add carpel tunnel for milking the system.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I practice this area of law for a living, and reading people's misinformed comments here and elsewhere about this claim is giving me a headache.

Show us your stuff big guy, I'm ready to read an informed lawyer's perspective on this case.

For example, do you think liability insurance covers the training staff? Would they have to carry their own insurance?