Jump to content
Kiwibrown

Reggie Bush awarded 12.5 million from St louis

Recommended Posts

I agree with awarding him money and his side is the correct side in this case. But 12.5 million...? I guarantee if this was a normal citizen he'd probably be looking at under a 100k settlement. Sport star bias based off their previous income...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's nice.

I don't know how much of the event could be prevented by Reggie himself; this isn't exactly hot coffee on your crotch

he's at an away game and you have to exit the field quickly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Sport star bias based off their previous income...

It's partially based on lost potential income. So "what if he was a normal citizen" doesn't really apply.

A more comparable example would be a model who became disfigured as a result of a food vendor dumping peanut oil on them. Or something.

Edited by cddolphin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chris00cm said:

Bitter is an understatement. That's why the Rams could argue the jury is biased.

I'm not a lawyer, so any actual lawyers should comment on this. @jrry32 @mse326 @hrubes20

The Rams want a new trial, but my understanding is simply saying "the jury was bias" isn't something that will actually get them one. They would have had to show that up front, before this trial and petition it to be moved somewhere where Rams fans weren't likely to be. During jury selection, I'm sure everyone was asked if they were a fan of the Rams and if the move would impair their ability to be impartial. The Rams agreed that they found 12 people who were suitable to judge the case. I'm sure the judge, who doesn't want his cases needlessly appealed, would see this coming from 10 miles away and make sure that any realistic concerns about juror bias were addressed.

By the way, the jury didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room here, since they weren't able to consider the city liable. That lawsuit was dismissed by a judge. So they were going to have to find Bush responsible for his injuries, or the Rams.

/relatively unbiased thoughts

 

This is fantastic and I hope they make Stank Kroenke personally right the check. And also release a video of it. Ideally in slow motion, and ideally there are sounds effects to allow for remixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ruling is actually pretty interesting more generally, by the way. There aren't a whole lot of liability suits like this that I know of (because I'm not a lawyer and also possibly an idiot), but holding teams responsible for their fields if there are any injuries is almost undoubtedly a good thing. 

If this ruling is precedent setting, would RG3 have a case against the Washington Dan Snyders for this?

ap-seahawks-redskins-football-4_3.jpg

How about Jadaveon Clowney's injury because of a hole in the Texan's turf?

Or how about that players are more likely to be injured on turf than grass?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This ruling is actually pretty interesting more generally, by the way. There aren't a whole lot of liability suits like this that I know of (because I'm not a lawyer and also possibly an idiot), but holding teams responsible for their fields if there are any injuries is almost undoubtedly a good thing. 

If this ruling is precedent setting, would RG3 have a case against the Washington Dan Snyders for this?

ap-seahawks-redskins-football-4_3.jpg

How about Jadaveon Clowney's injury because of a hole in the Texan's turf?

Or how about that players are more likely to be injured on turf than grass?

 

 

Wasn't there a rule in place specifically saying the Rams had to provide a mat or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'm not a lawyer, so any actual lawyers should comment on this. @jrry32 @mse326 @hrubes20

The Rams want a new trial, but my understanding is simply saying "the jury was bias" isn't something that will actually get them one. They would have had to show that up front, before this trial and petition it to be moved somewhere where Rams fans weren't likely to be. During jury selection, I'm sure everyone was asked if they were a fan of the Rams and if the move would impair their ability to be impartial. The Rams agreed that they found 12 people who were suitable to judge the case. I'm sure the judge, who doesn't want his cases needlessly appealed, would see this coming from 10 miles away and make sure that any realistic concerns about juror bias were addressed.

By the way, the jury didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room here, since they weren't able to consider the city liable. That lawsuit was dismissed by a judge. So they were going to have to find Bush responsible for his injuries, or the Rams.

/relatively unbiased thoughts

 

This is fantastic and I hope they make Stank Kroenke personally right the check. And also release a video of it. Ideally in slow motion, and ideally there are sounds effects to allow for remixes.

They can try, but it's unlikely to be a winning argument in and of itself. The best course of action will be appealing the case when the time comes. The motion for a new trial is just a hail mary before the appeal.

Edited by jrry32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

They can try, but it's unlikely to be a winning argument in and of itself. The best course of action will be appealing the case when the time comes. The motion for a new trial is just a hail mary before the appeal.

Yup. Truth is motions for a new trial are pretty routine to make and basically never get granted. It's really only procedural to make sure the appellate court doesn't say you needed to make the argument in trial court first.

There's about as much chance of them succeeding on an appeal for jury bias in this case as there is that Mark Sanchez makes the Hall of Fame. A team moving is hardly so bad to make an entire city ticked off that you can't find an unbaised jury. Voire dire should weed out any on the panel that are. If they didn't then the attorneys didn't do a good enough job. You can't inquire into the deliberations so this is basically going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Yup. Truth is motions for a new trial are pretty routine to make and basically never get granted. It's really only procedural to make sure the appellate court doesn't say you needed to make the argument in trial court first.

There's about as much chance of them succeeding on an appeal for jury bias in this case as there is that Mark Sanchez makes the Hall of Fame. A team moving is hardly so bad to make an entire city ticked off that you can't find an unbaised jury. Voire dire should weed out any on the panel that are. If they didn't then the attorneys didn't do a good enough job. You can't inquire into the deliberations so this is basically going nowhere.

Yep, based on my cursory knowledge of the case, I can think of two arguments they can make on appeal: 1) attacking the damage award (especially the punitive damages) or 2) attacking the judge's decision to dismiss the other defendants. The amount of punitive damages aren't unreasonable in light of the compensatory damage (assuming they stand), but they might be able to argue that Bush failed to offer evidence of severe enough conduct (well, more omissions) to be entitled to punitives.

5 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This is fantastic and I hope they make Stank Kroenke personally right the check. And also release a video of it. Ideally in slow motion, and ideally there are sounds effects to allow for remixes.

Kroenke deserves it, but odds are the Rams have liability insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This ruling is actually pretty interesting more generally, by the way. There aren't a whole lot of liability suits like this that I know of (because I'm not a lawyer and also possibly an idiot), but holding teams responsible for their fields if there are any injuries is almost undoubtedly a good thing. 

If this ruling is precedent setting, would RG3 have a case against the Washington Dan Snyders for this?

ap-seahawks-redskins-football-4_3.jpg

How about Jadaveon Clowney's injury because of a hole in the Texan's turf?

Or how about that players are more likely to be injured on turf than grass?

I highly doubt it. It's all about what risks athletes reasonably assume when they play the game. Getting injured while playing on the field is part of the game. Getting injured while way out of bounds because the Rams didn't bother to do their job isn't part of the game (and had notice of the potential for injury after Josh McCown's injury a week or two earlier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/14/2018 at 1:00 PM, BayRaider said:

I agree with awarding him money and his side is the correct side in this case. But 12.5 million...? I guarantee if this was a normal citizen he'd probably be looking at under a 100k settlement. Sport star bias based off their previous income...

Well, in this case it's highly relevant that he's a professional athlete and they are hosting a professional sporting event.  There is an expectation that they will provide a safe playing surface/venue for the participants (to some reasonable standard).

EDIT - When I say "playing surface" I do not intend to confuse the issue at  hand with field conditions themselves.  

Edited by sp6488

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 4:16 PM, ramssuperbowl99 said:

How about Jadaveon Clowney's injury because of a hole in the Texan's turf?

This one should have some weight. Prior to Clowney, you had Wes Welker tear and ACL/MCL, you had DeMeco Ryans tear an Achilles, you had a P tear his ACL on coverage - players have openly lobbied against the field conditions at NRG (as well as Bill Belicheck) and the Texans quietly swapped out those square grass pallets for the rollable field turf stuff a few seasons ago.

Surprised nobody has taken the Texans to court on this (I actually think the P did - blanking on his name).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EliteTexan80 said:

This one should have some weight. Prior to Clowney, you had Wes Welker tear and ACL/MCL, you had DeMeco Ryans tear an Achilles, you had a P tear his ACL on coverage - players have openly lobbied against the field conditions at NRG (as well as Bill Belicheck) and the Texans quietly swapped out those square grass pallets for the rollable field turf stuff a few seasons ago.

Surprised nobody has taken the Texans to court on this (I actually think the P did - blanking on his name).

So are the conditions better or worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

So are the conditions better or worse?

Better, I'd say. Too early to tell, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, EliteTexan80 said:

This one should have some weight. Prior to Clowney, you had Wes Welker tear and ACL/MCL, you had DeMeco Ryans tear an Achilles, you had a P tear his ACL on coverage - players have openly lobbied against the field conditions at NRG (as well as Bill Belicheck) and the Texans quietly swapped out those square grass pallets for the rollable field turf stuff a few seasons ago.

Surprised nobody has taken the Texans to court on this (I actually think the P did - blanking on his name).

I think the part that the Rams have a very difficult time defending is that the area in question is not in the field of play.   I get the argument that there's a certain standard you should be meeting, and the Texans had a history, but it's at least on the field of play - where the player takes a known risk of playing there.   The other part is that the fix for the area in question was dead simple to implement, so given the injury the week before, and the measure taken the week after Bush's injury, it set up a scenario for which the Rams were hard-pressed to defend - foreseeable, easy to fix, and outside of where a player would be expecting any additional risk present.   Again, I'm just a layman, but it sounds like all 3 conditions above were met in the Rams case, whereas in HOU you have 2 of 3 - which seems small, but sounds like it's a huge barrier for plaintiffs to win, you need all 3 conditions (foreseeable, fixable, and not an area with an inherent accepted risk of play).

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×