Lawsuit targets Sabres

[RichyRich]

As a soon to be law school grad (less than 1 month), that aud smell is right in his analysis & so is caprandeam (about not being able to disclaim all potential liabiltiy). That being said, being right as a matter of legal liability rarely seems to matter any more. Echoing a lot of comments: Our legal system is ridiculous. For example, consider the following: this idiot could bring his lawsuit, AT NO COST (most likely represented on a contingency fee basis OR if not a contingency, could BORROW money from one of the many plaintiff firms in the area that specifically loan (non-recourse loans) to the injured for the purpose of funding his lawsuit) & could even collect disability, and any recovery ESCAPES federal taxation. Lastly, while this doesnt completely apply here since the cat is already out of hte bag, a lot of companies choose to settle rather than fight & take a PR hit, in addition to the expense associated with defending yourself, given that your opponent can raise his claims at not cost.

 

Thanks for whoever raised this post. A great topic for our region. (disagree? take a ride in your car & see our city plastered with billboards asking, "Injured? Call Me") What businesses wouldnt want to move here???

[Done]

I'll come out of the bushes as an attorney. :ph34r:

 

As a general matter, it's correct to say that those waiver statements on tickets (which, in real property law terms, I believe, are "revocable licenses" to use that seat (e.g, drunk a-holes know all about the "revocable" part)), and those standard releases that people sign at places of "public amusement" (ski slopes, bouncehouses, horse trails) are hardly worth the paper they're written on.

 

I don't think the governing laws will require Jackson to show that the Sabres knew (or should have known) it was "likely" that the glass would pop -- more likely, the legal theory will be that the team failed to properly install, monitor, maintain, etc. the stanchions at issue. Hell, there's probably a claim against the company that made the stanchions and the glass.

 

Tool.

 

So how do you feel on the Teppo situation? By signing a guy to 3 consecutive contracts, knowing he had a heart condition that would eventually need surgery to correct, is that not also assumption of risk? If you argue that it is in the CBA that a player not in hockey shape and injured due to a non hockey injury shouldn't be paid....well, if the surgery came about sooner than normally expected, couldn't you say the stress on the heart of a pro athlete is not normal, thus it put an added strain on his heart and forced the timetable of the surgery to the front end?

 

The Sabres act is just as bad as any rinky-dink fan lawsuit.

[fallen627]

That's a pretty big assumption...I've seen some flighty prof's...they don't call them "nutty professors" for nothing.

 

Granted that many professors are scattered, but in their respective fields, they would probably have no problem utilizing facts or logic. Of course, this will vary by field. For example, a professor of law, history, or science, fields that depend on making sound arguments and being able to effectively defend these arguments, would have extensive rhetorical experience, both as an aggressor and defender. On the other hand, professors in fields that depend more on aesthetics, such as pottery and photography, would be well versed in aesthetics but would have less skill as rhetoricians. The person in question seems to specialize in photography. Thus, one can assume that he has a great deal of knowledge about the field (his pictures look pretty good), but it shouldn't be surprising that he isn't the most rational (lets be honest, how many artists are?). Thus, while I agree that some professors would be susceptible to "facts" and "logic," most would be extremely capable doing battle with these tools.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As a soon to be law school grad (less than 1 month), that aud smell is right in his analysis & so is caprandeam (about not being able to disclaim all potential liabiltiy). That being said, being right as a matter of legal liability rarely seems to matter any more. Echoing a lot of comments: Our legal system is ridiculous. For example, consider the following: this idiot could bring his lawsuit, AT NO COST (most likely represented on a contingency fee basis OR if not a contingency, could BORROW money from one of the many plaintiff firms in the area that specifically loan (non-recourse loans) to the injured for the purpose of funding his lawsuit) & could even collect disability, and any recovery ESCAPES federal taxation. Lastly, while this doesnt completely apply here since the cat is already out of hte bag, a lot of companies choose to settle rather than fight & take a PR hit, in addition to the expense associated with defending yourself, given that your opponent can raise his claims at not cost.

 

Thanks for whoever raised this post. A great topic for our region. (disagree? take a ride in your car & see our city plastered with billboards asking, "Injured? Call Me") What businesses wouldnt want to move here???

 

Playing devil's advocate... You expect honor in our society?

 

:lol: :lol:

[inkman]

Golisano's probably pissed...

No doubt. How many sugar packets will he have to gather to offset the price of a bad-aid and an ice pack?

[ExiledInIllinois]

No doubt. How many sugar packets will he have to gather to offset the price of a bad-aid and an ice pack?

 

It is that "Depression Era" mentality... In this case, pulling the Sabres out of bankrupcy has caused that mentality. Can you blame them?

[Two or less]

The guy claims he can't move his neck for long periods of time without pain..... i may not be a genius, but the guy weighing 400 pounds MIGHT be the problem, not the plaxie glass. What a fat bastard.

[Buffalo Fan]

As a soon to be law school grad (less than 1 month), that aud smell is right in his analysis & so is caprandeam (about not being able to disclaim all potential liabiltiy). That being said, being right as a matter of legal liability rarely seems to matter any more. Echoing a lot of comments: Our legal system is ridiculous. For example, consider the following: this idiot could bring his lawsuit, AT NO COST (most likely represented on a contingency fee basis OR if not a contingency, could BORROW money from one of the many plaintiff firms in the area that specifically loan (non-recourse loans) to the injured for the purpose of funding his lawsuit) & could even collect disability, and any recovery ESCAPES federal taxation. Lastly, while this doesnt completely apply here since the cat is already out of hte bag, a lot of companies choose to settle rather than fight & take a PR hit, in addition to the expense associated with defending yourself, given that your opponent can raise his claims at not cost.

 

Thanks for whoever raised this post. A great topic for our region. (disagree? take a ride in your car & see our city plastered with billboards asking, "Injured? Call Me") What businesses wouldnt want to move here???

 

Yet if you die, your estate can be taxed AGAIN! (EDIT: true in NJ, not sure about NY)

[shrader]

No doubt. How many sugar packets will he have to gather to offset the price of a bad-aid and an ice pack?

 

Actually, I was wrong earlier. There's no way they'd go the expensive route with a band-aid. This poor guy was probably stuck with and "adhesive bandage", most likely one of those ones that never stay on yet somehow still leave a ton of residue from the adhesive. They also probably stuck him with a dixie cup and a few ice cubes.

[That Aud Smell]

So how do you feel on the Teppo situation? By signing a guy to 3 consecutive contracts, knowing he had a heart condition that would eventually need surgery to correct, is that not also assumption of risk? If you argue that it is in the CBA that a player not in hockey shape and injured due to a non hockey injury shouldn't be paid....well, if the surgery came about sooner than normally expected, couldn't you say the stress on the heart of a pro athlete is not normal, thus it put an added strain on his heart and forced the timetable of the surgery to the front end?

 

The Sabres act is just as bad as any rinky-dink fan lawsuit.

 

I won't go there, other than to say that assumption of the risk is a legal doctrine that has no bearing in a contract analysis -- it's something that plays in a personal injury lawsuit.

 

The guy claims he can't move his neck for long periods of time without pain..... i may not be a genius, but the guy weighing 400 pounds MIGHT be the problem

 

Spot f'ing on, bro.

[Done]

I won't go there, other than to say that assumption of the risk is a legal doctrine that has no bearing in a contract analysis -- it's something that plays in a personal injury lawsuit.

Spot f'ing on, bro.

 

Ok..on Teppo....I'll call it continuation of agency. If you sign a guy with a known problem and there is nothing specific written in about that specific problem, by continuing to do business with him it is also tacetly approved that you understand he has an underlying condition.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I think Teppo has a huge case. I'm more responding to the fact that some of the same people who said the Sabres should have suspended Teppo are on here now railing against Joe-Schmo for stretching the boundaries of good taste within the law. That's the only reason I brought it up.

Sort of cheesey if you ask me.

[Eleven]

I couldn't read all 63 or so posts without responding:

 

1) I don't think that the disclaimer on the back of the ticket really means that much.

 

2) Bruce Jackson was the second-worst professor I had as a UB student. The worst? His wife, Diane Christian. And it's a close call.

 

3) This thing will settle.

[Supersabre]

I would be curious to know if this is the first time this guy has ever sued anyone or if he's a serial suer. :ph34r:

[spndnchz]

His daughter is the lawyer handling the case. Go figure. <_<

[bottlecap]

His daughter is the lawyer handling the case. Go figure. <_<

 

next time before you try front row seats, check the back of the ticket for the waiver, Bruce. maybe lose 100 lbs so your reflexes are better too.

[deluca67]

Just another lowlife looking for a handout.

 

How does that guy have kids? I would hate to see a picture of the wife. :wacko:

[inkman]

I would hate to see a picture of the wife. :wacko:

 

I'm impressed.

[X. Benedict]

Ok..on Teppo....I'll call it continuation of agency. If you sign a guy with a known problem and there is nothing specific written in about that specific problem, by continuing to do business with him it is also tacetly approved that you understand he has an underlying condition.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I think Teppo has a huge case. I'm more responding to the fact that some of the same people who said the Sabres should have suspended Teppo are on here now railing against Joe-Schmo for stretching the boundaries of good taste within the law. That's the only reason I brought it up.

Sort of cheesey if you ask me.

Huge case? Perhaps if he had a civil case. But this is all under the framework of a collective bargaining agreement, which pretty much means you have thrown labor law out...that's why it is a grievance and not a civil case. The owners right to suspend was negotiated collectively. The burden is on the Union to show that the owners right does not apply.

[McJeff215]

http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/17250209.html

Seriously, if this junk lawsuit goes through, we should definitely take up a collection for the Sabres. It might go to charity like Ruff?s collection last year, but at least the professor knows where the rest of the Buffalo area stands.

 

You know, my first reaction to the suggestion that we take up a collection was "It's not my responsibility to pay someone else's legal bills."

 

On second thought, when this type of thing happens, passing the plate around with the intention to donate it to charity really does underscore the support these teams receive from the local area and the fan base. Though I do think that Lindy's fine was a much more fitting reason to raise a bit of cash. This guy? Buffalo beer shower! ;)