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

[GioforPM]

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.

I'm a Wideman defender fairly often, especially WRT whether he intentionally aimed himself at Henderson. That said, Norm Machida doesn't give bad legal advice and he's not known for being an unreasonable or aggressive litigator. If there's an insurer calling a shot, maybe that changes things. IMO the damages a Canadian judge would award will be a lot less, and something like this hardly ever even gets that far.

[Canehdianman]

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

Govt of Alberta has a right to recovery for almost all personal injury actions in which an Albertan has received health services as a result of injuries suffered due to the wrongful act or omission of a third party.

I assume he is based out of Alberta still (Wikipedia says he was actually born on Calgary)

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

[Five-hole]

Watch Wideman's skates right before he hits Henderson. They angle to the side, like he's trying to get out of the way suddenly. Wideman's whole body reaction was "whoa, I didn't see you, wtf", not "eat #!@% and die, mfer".

[GioforPM]

Does anyone have a link to the full statement of claim? The list of injuries doesn't fuss me - that's a standard laundry list for a personal injury suit. I'm interested in what torts they are actually claiming.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Does anyone have a link to the full statement of claim? The list of injuries doesn't fuss me - that's a standard laundry list for a personal injury suit. I'm interested in what torts they are actually claiming.

I haven't been able to find it on line, but I haven't looked to hard.


I am interested in how it is worded. If it is described as intentional, I would if that would affect/change any insurance coverage which might be in place for any of the defendants.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Watch Wideman's skates right before he hits Henderson. They angle to the side, like he's trying to get out of the way suddenly. Wideman's whole body reaction was "whoa, I didn't see you, wtf", not "eat #!@% and die, mfer".

Or maybe he was just trying to avoid crashing into him while still deliberately cross checking him in the back.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Unless someone invents a time machine and develops telepathy there's never going to be a way to determine what Wideman's intent was or what was in his head or if he was even fully conscious. Until then, probably best to just accept that fact and stop debating his intent.

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Or maybe he was just trying to avoid crashing into him while still deliberately cross checking him in the back.

or maybe he wanted to hit him and then quickly changed his mind last second and decided he wanted to run head first into the boards instead (cause that's fun for him) but it was too late so he just said "*^&$ it, I'll lay out this linesman who I have absolutely no issue with" but his feet didn't get the message quick enough...

[Sutter_in_law]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Unless someone invents a time machine and develops telepathy there's never going to be a way to determine what Wideman's intent was or what was in his head or if he was even fully conscious. Until then, probably best to just accept that fact and stop debating his intent.

this

[automaton 3]

I'd be surprised if intent became much of an issue. A claim based in negligence seems more likely.

I'm quite interested to see if Wideman chooses to 3rd party anyone.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I'd be surprised if intent became much of an issue. A claim based in negligence seems more likely.

I'm quite interested to see if Wideman chooses to 3rd party anyone.

Yeah. The NHL and his soon-to-be ex-employer seem like ripe targets. Maybe even that Preds player that hit him.

"Culture of violence". Failure to protect against concussions / head shots.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I'd be surprised if intent became much of an issue. A claim based in negligence seems more likely.

I'm quite interested to see if Wideman chooses to 3rd party anyone.

I've read snippets of the claim that do indeed refer to an intentional act. However, there may also be an alternative pleading of negligence.

This is a tough case, with plenty of risk for the defendants. Henderson isn't risking much aside from being grilled pretty hard in discovery and having some embarrassing info come out (I have also heard that he was being forced out of the league prior to the hit). I would imagine he isn't paying any up front legal fees. He would be at risk for costs if he actually goes to a trial and loses.

I might have to give Mr. Machida a friendly call. I've had a few files with him before (not injury cases) - he's a super nice guy. It's interesting that Norm is counsel for the CHL in that minimum wage case.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've read snippets of the claim that do indeed refer to an intentional act. However, there may also be an alternative pleading of negligence.

This is a tough case, with plenty of risk for the defendants. Henderson isn't risking much aside from being grilled pretty hard in discovery and having some embarrassing info come out (I have also heard that he was being forced out of the league prior to the hit). I would imagine he isn't paying any up front legal fees. He would be at risk for costs if he actually goes to a trial and loses.

I might have to give Mr. Machida a friendly call. I've had a few files with him before (not injury cases) - he's a super nice guy. It's interesting that Norm is counsel for the CHL in that minimum wage case.

Aren't these type of lawsuits taken by lawyers who only get paid if they win any money? And not get paid if they lose?

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I'd be surprised if intent became much of an issue. A claim based in negligence seems more likely.

I'm quite interested to see if Wideman chooses to 3rd party anyone.

Neither matter if Wideman had just suffered a brain injury. (concussion)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Aren't these type of lawsuits taken by lawyers who only get paid if they win any money? And not get paid if they lose?

That's basically what I said, except if that you lose you are usually obliged to pay a measure of costs to the other side, and contingency fee agreements sometimes don't include that aspect. So if the Flames won (or exceeded a formal offer they made) Henderson might be personally on the hook for payment to them. Of course, most injury cases never make it to a court decision (and a resulting costs award).

Some contingency fee agreements also require the plaintiff to pay out of pocket expenses like expert reports, copying, etc. But I doubt that would be the case for Henderson.

[calgaryblood]

That's actually not what you said at all but thanks for clarifying.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

That's actually not what you said at all but thanks for clarifying.

I said:

I would imagine he isn't paying any up front legal fees. He would be at risk for costs if he actually goes to a trial and loses.

Not paying up front legal fees is how a contingency agreement works.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I said:

I would imagine he isn't paying any up front legal fees. He would be at risk for costs if he actually goes to a trial and loses.

Not paying up front legal fees is how a contingency agreement works.

I was asking if the lawyers don't get paid if they lose, and you said it's basically what you said. Not to nitpick but that's not what you said.

Not getting paid means not getting paid if they lose. Isn't that how most of these lawsuits work? I'm not talking about upfront fees, I mean being paid at all. If a lawyer takes an insurance company on in regards to an automobile accident, they only get paid if they win usually at a set percentage, isn't this exactly how this would work as well?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Dan403

Neither matter if Wideman had just suffered a brain injury. (concussion)

You might be right in a criminal court, but standards are different in civil law. IANAL FWIW.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I was asking if the lawyers don't get paid if they lose, and you said it's basically what you said. Not to nitpick but that's not what you said.

Not getting paid means not getting paid if they lose. Isn't that how most of these lawsuits work? I'm not talking about upfront fees, I mean being paid at all. If a lawyer takes an insurance company on in regards to an automobile accident, they only get paid if they win usually at a set percentage, isn't this exactly how this would work as well?

Right, they get paid if they win or settle. In pretty every other case, there is an up front fee, or at least an ongoing fee, so that's why I figured it was apparent. The percentage can be set, but is now often a sliding scale based on the level of recovery. This can affect settlement.

Contingency fees sound good in principle but they often don't work very well in practice. The lawyers work hard at getting you to sign up, then don't work that hard because they aren't getting paid on a regular basis, and encourage settlement to get some money in the door, sometimes too early. Kinda like a realtor getting a listing by telling you how much you can make from your house and then pushing you to sell lower so they can grab a quicker commission. And they really aren't as risky for the lawyer as they sound. PI claims rarely go to trial and almost always settle.