Friday, February 25, 2005

Do we have a lawyer in the house?

Tom Benjamin builds on a point I made when I first heard about Steve Moore suing Todd Bertuzzi.
The case was filed in Denver because in Canada it is a nickle and dime case. There is not significantly less money in Canada. There is no money in Canada. Only in the United States is this a big money case....

Moore moved the case from where he was sure to win and sure to receive an appropriate (in my opinion) award. He moved it to a place where the case is much more of a stretch but will give him an inappropriate (in my opinion) award if he wins. I don't think that reflects particularly well on Steve Moore myself.
It's a legal loophole really, and my lawyering experience is limited to the degree I bought online. But, as I said earlier, I think Moore should be compensated for how significant his injuries are (which is—surprise, surprise—something else Tom disputes in the comments section):
If Naslund had been assaulted and suffered the same injury, he is playing again in a couple of months. If Naslund had been assaulted and it ended up in a career ending injury it wouldn't matter where he sued. He's getting a huge whack of money.
The only problem here being: How Tom knows that Moore's injuries aren't career-ending, I haven't the foggiest. He's saying that Naslund is somehow able to overcome the same injury when Moore is 'faking it' in order to sue, something he can't possibly know.

Like a lot of Tom's posts, he follows some great information and insight with a ridiculous assertion like this.


At 1:59 p.m., February 25, 2005, Anonymous David M Singer said...

My problem with a lot of it comes from this angle:
He hasn't tried to play again.

Yes, he filed in CO, so the money angle should be obvious to everyone - but I can't imagine a hockey player being in this situation and not waiting to recover and then trying to play again. It hasn't even been a year, and there's no NHL anyway. Sit, wait, recover. When there's some hockey to play, try. If you can't, you have a much better case. Of course, if you can, you might not have any case at all...

At 3:18 a.m., February 26, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And it's disingenuous to say merely that "Moore should be compensated" as a justification for the lawsuit: the NHL's disability insurance plan for players will compensate him pretty well in the event that he can't play again as a consequence of his injury. The lawsuit is an implicit claim for further compensation beyond that point, and you must show that that is justifiable. -Cosh

At 4:33 a.m., February 26, 2005, Blogger James Mirtle said...

Moore should be compensated (in my opinion) for the amount that his future earnings in the NHL would have given him, not the payoff of an insurance claim — entirely different things.

Why is it justifiable? Well, Moore's career wasn't ended via a freak icing-chasedown accident a la Pat Peake. Another player's criminal actions were directly responsible for the end of his career (which, I know, is still speculation but that notwithstanding) giving him grounds to be further compensated.

At 7:12 a.m., December 18, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said..., a lot of this is so dated, but I just found this site, and I don't like what I've read or seen about this case, so in fact years later, I will comment.

Steve Moore got hurt. That is unfortunate. Steve Moore did try to hurt Markus Naslund! Sorry, hide behind the "clean hit" garbage all you want, but the truth is people can be seriously hurt with "clean hits."

The "condition" that is preventing Moore from playing again, from what I've read, is not broken vertebrae or whatever in his neck: its post concussion syndrome- something HE himself could've caused Naslund with his hit!

Bertuzzi wasn't right for doing what he did- but there are a lot of mitigating factors here. First of all- if Gretzky had been hit the way Naslund had been, does anyone believe Moore would've been let off the hook? Its an unwritten rule in hockey: you don't clobber the marquee guys!

In addition, the whole lead up to this thing has been mischaracterized. Bertuzzi is characterized as having stalked Moore- it looks that way to large degree because Moore himself, knowing all along that Bertuzzi was behind him and had 'business' with him, refused to face him. Yeah, it would've ended in a fight: but hey, that's hockey!

And finally, on top of all of this, I question the Avalanche's conduct in all of this. Lets understand: not only did they terminate Moore's employment at first opportunity, but they're decision to even put him out there on the ice in a game that had become a blow stupid at best, and provocative at worst! So my point: they put Moore in a position to be attacked and hurt, and then claimed to be horrified...but was their conduct 'stand up' in any way?

This isn't to say that Moore shouldn't be compensated for the injuries he sustained. But tens of millions or more? No...sorry, but I don't buy that...anymore than I buy that 'clean' hockey hits that intend to injure ought to negate the fact that the intent to injure was there all along.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker