Around The League - Hockey is back!
View Single Post
08-14-2012, 06:41 PM
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Originally Posted by
While intent would play a role in leniency, that scenario is still considered assault(edit: I'm mixing up my terminology, battery is what it constitutes). You are expected to face the consequences of your actions, regardless if what resulted comes from malice or recklessness.
We do need to wait and see what actually happened here, but that also means not labeling the injured party as just some litigious idiot looking for free money. He's liable for things like medical bills whether he wanted to injure someone or not.
I don't disagree with your analysis or that Bob may have some liability even if someone was unintentionally hurt. And I haven't
accused the plaintiff as a sue happy victim, only that it is a distinct possibility. However, it is hard not to think in those terms when you read the following:
Her lawyers said the attack was so vicious, it caused Paris to urinate blood and tore cartilage in her left shoulder, requiring surgery, among other injuries.
They said she was fired after her boss told her not to notify police because he was fearful of losing his broadcasting contract with the Wings.
“She’s lost her house, she’s lost her car and she hasn’t been able to work,” Paris’ lawyer, Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, said Monday. He said Paris suffered debilitating injuries that have prevented her from working.
If all Bob did was act stupidly and accidentally hurt someone, then calling it a vicious attack tells me this
a victim mentality, sue happy person who wants to blame all of her life's failures on somebody else. And, to me, taking this kind of accusation public only reinforces that belief.
If I'm a betting man, I'm calling BS on this woman. And I'll even bet a cup of Starbucks on it (since I have no idea how to gamble vcash
View Public Profile
Eddie Shack's albums
Find More Posts by Eddie Shack