Shooting victim at least year's NBA All-Star Game (1 Viewer)

[tikitime]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3250283

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for this woman and her husband, but Goodell never promised anything. Why exactly would the NFL have a responsibility to this woman at all?

If I went with some buddies to a strip club on a weekend, got blitzed, and plowed my car into some people, why exactly should my employer be responsible?

 

[tikitime]

tikitime, pacman_fl

Thoughts?

 

[westbrook36]

That's how America works anymore. When you get injured sue everybody. Especially somebody with a ton of money(NFL).

 

[trader jake]

Why would an employer be financially responsible for what an employee does during their free time? If Pac Man, or one of Pac Man's bodyguards, did this while travelling with the team then I would understand. This lawsuit has no legal basis and should be thrown out quickly. Lame.

 

[FightingWombat]

Why would an employer be financially responsible for what an employee does during their free time? If Pac Man, or one of Pac Man's bodyguards, did this while travelling with the team then I would understand. This lawsuit has no legal basis and should be thrown out quickly. Lame.

My guess is timing. In the past year, the NFL has had to endure the Mike Vick scandal and the Spygate scandal, on top of Pac-Man's antics. Arlen Spector (D) PA and Congress have gotten into the mix as well as. The NFL hasn't gotten a lot of good press lately. Perhaps the lawyer feels he can get some money for his client merely because the NFL doesn't want any more bad press. I am doubtful it works, however.

 

[trader jake]

Why would an employer be financially responsible for what an employee does during their free time? If Pac Man, or one of Pac Man's bodyguards, did this while travelling with the team then I would understand. This lawsuit has no legal basis and should be thrown out quickly. Lame.

My guess is timing. In the past year, the NFL has had to endure the Mike Vick scandal and the Spygate scandal, on top of Pac-Man's antics. Arlen Spector (D) PA and Congress have gotten into the mix as well as. The NFL hasn't gotten a lot of good press lately. Perhaps the lawyer feels he can get some money for his client merely because the NFL doesn't want any more bad press. I am doubtful it works, however.

I see where you're coming from...Of course the NFL is more likely to spend a million bucks defending itself before giving any amount to the plaintiff.

 

[Bri]

They sued Pacman, the Titans, and the NFL.

Titans judgement is already decided, read article

Now they're onto the NFL.

It's just procedure for lawyers

 

[redman]

The NFL owes no duty to this woman. These players weren't acting within the course and scope of their duties as NFL players at the time of this incident, and anyway they aren't employees of the NFL anyway but rather of their respective teams.

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

 

[redman]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

"On a clear day, you can foresee forever."

 

[Chaka]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:1 Pacman was an NFL player.2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 064 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the meleeObviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

 

[mad sweeney]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:1 Pacman was an NFL player.2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 064 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the meleeObviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

This is why kids can't play tag or hide and go seek at recess anymore, because some kid feels singled out when he's it (chubby and can't tag anyone so he's sad, but being chubby isn't his fault either btw) and the school gets sued. Life should emphasize personal responsibility, not the cleverest way to blame someone else.

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:1 Pacman was an NFL player.2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 064 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the meleeObviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

 

[top dog]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

 

[mad sweeney]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

That whole last paragraph is a cause for loathing. His job is to get money for his client so if he has to make stuff up and try to get it from a non responsible entity he's doing a good job. If "within the rules" involves ripping off another entity because they have more money than the responsible party then the rules are very, very wrong. And since that's the justification by lawyers, there's a well deserved loathing.

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

That whole last paragraph is a cause for loathing. His job is to get money for his client so if he has to make stuff up and try to get it from a non responsible entity he's doing a good job. If "within the rules" involves ripping off another entity because they have more money than the responsible party then the rules are very, very wrong. And since that's the justification by lawyers, there's a well deserved loathing.

How is suing someone "ripping them off"?

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money? :(

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

 

[redman]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

 

[FUBAR]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

 

[FUBAR]

Reading this over a little closer, the frightening thing is, I can actually see them winning.

 

[mad sweeney]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

That whole last paragraph is a cause for loathing. His job is to get money for his client so if he has to make stuff up and try to get it from a non responsible entity he's doing a good job. If "within the rules" involves ripping off another entity because they have more money than the responsible party then the rules are very, very wrong. And since that's the justification by lawyers, there's a well deserved loathing.

How is suing someone "ripping them off"?

The bolded paragraph clearly outlines a plan to compensate a victim via the pockets of a richer but entirely non responsible party. As in, they have money, my client needs money, I'll take it from them even though they clearly don't owe her any, even in this "clever" and "out of the box" scenario. I'll just add their name and see if they throw a little money my way to make this ridiculous claim go away. That's ripping someone off, pure and simple.If someone named you in a frivolous suit, maybe because you were in the lane next to a guy that rear ended another car and he sued you for not making him stop faster, wouldn't you feel like he was trying to rip you off?

 

[Itchy Amos]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that.

But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

That whole last paragraph is a cause for loathing. His job is to get money for his client so if he has to make stuff up and try to get it from a non responsible entity he's doing a good job. If "within the rules" involves ripping off another entity because they have more money than the responsible party then the rules are very, very wrong. And since that's the justification by lawyers, there's a well deserved loathing.

How is suing someone "ripping them off"?

Unless you are some third rate hack of a lawyer looking to justify your own actions, this has got to be This lawsuit is the embodiment of what is wrong with our legal system today. Try getting sued for something that you were completely un-involved in and then tell me how you feel. After you spend thousands of dollars and days of lost billable time, not to mention the added stress that is brought on by someone looking to cash in on (potentially) years of your hard work, I can promise you that "ripped off" will be not come close to describing how you feel.

In this case, this woman has undoubtedly suffered greatly, but lets place responsibility where it belongs. There are many felons out there that were employed at the time of their crime. Should have all of their employeers been sued simply because the money that they paid an employee was used to buy gas for the car that transported the felon to the scene of a crime? This is flat out ridiculous.

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

 

[redman]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

I'm trying to figure out how far gone the motive has to be for you to have to overlook the quality of the effort, so bear with me.Do you admire the Nazi's for the efficiency with which they ran the Final Solution?

Do you admire the marksmanship of the Chinese soldiers in Tienanmen Square?

Do you admire Saddam's audacious construction aspirations?

Do you have to hand it to Jeffrey Skilling for his brilliance in ripping off Enron employees and investors?

 

[tikitime]

Do you admire the Nazi's for the efficiency with which they ran the Final Solution?

Do you admire the marksmanship of the Chinese soldiers in Tienanmen Square?

Do you admire Saddam's audacious construction aspirations?

Do you have to hand it to Jeffrey Skilling for his brilliance in ripping off Enron employees and investors?

I think this example proves my point. Were the Nazis awful? Do I wish they never existed? Do I hate that they killed pretty much the entirety of my grandfather's family and forced my grandparents to live like vagrants throughout Europe for years? Of course

These facts don't mean that they weren't organized and effective. Simply stating that fact does not mean that I support the Nazis or their views. Its a purely intellectual viewpoint, and if you remove emotion from the evaluation, I think you could see how one could view the present situation in the same way.

 

[Kinger]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

 

[redman]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

The two situations are in no way comparable. McDonalds owes a direct duty to its customers; the plaintiff here was not a customer or client of, or contractor with, the NFL. The McDonalds case got politicized (wrongly in my view) as an example of frivolous lawsuits, and for many people that's where the analysis stopped. Important fact on the coffee case that most people don't know- the coffee as served by McDonalds prior to that lawsuit was at a temperature that was too hot to drink. The idea was to overheat it so that it would stay hot as you left the restaurant. The trouble was that it was heated to dangerous levels. The fact that the lady in that case opted to hold it between her legs was not a bar to liability against McDonalds, but was rightly used as a comparative negligence argument that reduced damages attributable to McDonalds.

 

[Kinger]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

The two situations are in no way comparable. McDonalds owes a direct duty to its customers; the plaintiff here was not a customer or client of, or contractor with, the NFL. The McDonalds case got politicized (wrongly in my view) as an example of frivolous lawsuits, and for many people that's where the analysis stopped. Important fact on the coffee case that most people don't know- the coffee as served by McDonalds prior to that lawsuit was at a temperature that was too hot to drink. The idea was to overheat it so that it would stay hot as you left the restaurant. The trouble was that it was heated to dangerous levels. The fact that the lady in that case opted to hold it between her legs was not a bar to liability against McDonalds, but was rightly used as a comparative negligence argument that reduced damages attributable to McDonalds.

No. If I'm on the jury, she's flat out wrong. I can't grab the burner on my stove right after I turn it off and sue GE, at least I'd hope that a jury wouldn't buy the argument that GE was at fault. And there really is no difference. The fact that the comparative negligence argument could be made was enough to show prior knowledge. Court decisions today are emotional, not logical. I feel sorry for them, therefore we should do something. Company X has lots of money and they can afford to make them feel better. I'll stop hijacking...

 

[redman]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

The two situations are in no way comparable. McDonalds owes a direct duty to its customers; the plaintiff here was not a customer or client of, or contractor with, the NFL. The McDonalds case got politicized (wrongly in my view) as an example of frivolous lawsuits, and for many people that's where the analysis stopped. Important fact on the coffee case that most people don't know- the coffee as served by McDonalds prior to that lawsuit was at a temperature that was too hot to drink. The idea was to overheat it so that it would stay hot as you left the restaurant. The trouble was that it was heated to dangerous levels. The fact that the lady in that case opted to hold it between her legs was not a bar to liability against McDonalds, but was rightly used as a comparative negligence argument that reduced damages attributable to McDonalds.

No. If I'm on the jury, she's flat out wrong. I can't grab the burner on my stove right after I turn it off and sue GE, at least I'd hope that a jury wouldn't buy the argument that GE was at fault. And there really is no difference. The fact that the comparative negligence argument could be made was enough to show prior knowledge. Court decisions today are emotional, not logical. I feel sorry for them, therefore we should do something. Company X has lots of money and they can afford to make them feel better. I'll stop hijacking...

Sorry, I guess I wasn't aware that burners on stoves were supposed to be operated at a temperature at which you could safely consume the burner. I'm telling you the way that the law on the issue operates, and how differently it operates from this case against the NFL. You disagree, fine. Only one of us is being factual here, rather than emotional.

 

[dad004]

I think that loser pays would stop many frivolous lawsuits, such as this.

 

[redman]

I think that loser pays would stop many frivolous lawsuits, such as this.

This is turning into a FFA thread, but what the hell.Loser pays would indeed stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but it would also stop a lot of otherwise meritorious lawsuits that weren't "slam dunks" or were close. To use one example, cases like the Erin Brockovich case wouldn't tend to happen with that sort of system.

 

[Dexter Manley]

at the lawyer haters in this thread. Do I think this lawsuit vs. the NFL is ridiculous? Absolutely. Is this particular lawyer doing his job pretty darn well? Absolutely.

In general, I really don't get the hate for lawyers outside of prosecuting attorneys, who are BY FAR the biggest scumbags in the profession. I find the pharmaceutical sales industry, for example, many times more loathsome than the industry of law, and it continually amazes me how the general public doesn't hold similar vitriol for the pharma industry as they do for lawyers.

 

[Kinger]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't aware that burners on stoves were supposed to be operated at a temperature at which you could safely consume the burner.

You knew darn well what I meant. Besides, she wasn't 'consuming' the coffee at the time either, unless she was doing it in such a way that you'd only be likely to see on pay-per-view on a Staurday night.

 

[Christo]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

That whole last paragraph is a cause for loathing. His job is to get money for his client so if he has to make stuff up and try to get it from a non responsible entity he's doing a good job. If "within the rules" involves ripping off another entity because they have more money than the responsible party then the rules are very, very wrong. And since that's the justification by lawyers, there's a well deserved loathing.

How is suing someone "ripping them off"?

Because he knows his "theory" is crap and the NFL has no responsibility for what happened.

 

[Christo]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

Yes

 

[thayman]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

The two situations are in no way comparable. McDonalds owes a direct duty to its customers; the plaintiff here was not a customer or client of, or contractor with, the NFL. The McDonalds case got politicized (wrongly in my view) as an example of frivolous lawsuits, and for many people that's where the analysis stopped. Important fact on the coffee case that most people don't know- the coffee as served by McDonalds prior to that lawsuit was at a temperature that was too hot to drink. The idea was to overheat it so that it would stay hot as you left the restaurant. The trouble was that it was heated to dangerous levels. The fact that the lady in that case opted to hold it between her legs was not a bar to liability against McDonalds, but was rightly used as a comparative negligence argument that reduced damages attributable to McDonalds.

No. If I'm on the jury, she's flat out wrong. I can't grab the burner on my stove right after I turn it off and sue GE, at least I'd hope that a jury wouldn't buy the argument that GE was at fault. And there really is no difference. The fact that the comparative negligence argument could be made was enough to show prior knowledge. Court decisions today are emotional, not logical. I feel sorry for them, therefore we should do something. Company X has lots of money and they can afford to make them feel better. I'll stop hijacking...

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

 

[Christo]

This is stupid and has no chance of winning.

I would have thought that driving while drinking hot coffee would have been an obvious one, too.

 

[thayman]

at the lawyer haters in this thread. Do I think this lawsuit vs. the NFL is ridiculous? Absolutely. Is this particular lawyer doing his job pretty darn well? Absolutely.In general, I really don't get the hate for lawyers outside of prosecuting attorneys, who are BY FAR the biggest scumbags in the profession. I find the pharmaceutical sales industry, for example, many times more loathsome than the industry of law, and it continually amazes me how the general public doesn't hold similar vitriol for the pharma industry as they do for lawyers.

I hate pharmaceutical sales reps. I'm in hospitality and I watch these people come in and try and wine and dine doctors, costing thousands of dollars over a weekend just so they will prescribe their company's medication.....and people wonder why medicine is so damn expensive.

 

[tikitime]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

So in your world, hiring lawyers to defend you in a frivolous lawsuit doesn't cost anything?

Fair point, but clearly the prior poster was referring to damages, not legal fees.In no fashion do I think the lawsuit against the NFL has any merit, I'm just admiring the creativity behind the claim as I thought it was unique, outside the box thinking, as frivolous as the ultimate claim might have been.

Got it, you admire bull####ters who bring frivilous lawsuits and should be disbarred. Is he taking this on contigency? If not, do you still admire him.

I'll admit though, he'd make a damn fine White House Counsel or AG.

How many times do I have to say I think the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit? I'm the OP here!! All I've said is that reading the story a little further that from an intellectual perspective it is a creative argument. Nobody is nominating this guy for lawyer of the year or anything. And you really think this guy should be stripped of his profession and no longer be allowed to bring a living because he brings this type of action? Seriously?

Yes

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

 

[Kinger]

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

So then, are you saying that if she didn't require that, then McDonalds would not have been at fault or that the jury would have decided differently? Otherwise, there was no reason for you to point that out, if indeed the facts were all that was needed. Unless, of course, you are looking to exploit the emotional aspect of it. Any good lawyer will exploit any angle he can. That doesn't mean the case is decided correctly. Thanks for helping reinforce my point.re-edit to attribute the quote to its proper owner...

 

[tikitime]

at the lawyer haters in this thread. Do I think this lawsuit vs. the NFL is ridiculous? Absolutely. Is this particular lawyer doing his job pretty darn well? Absolutely.In general, I really don't get the hate for lawyers outside of prosecuting attorneys, who are BY FAR the biggest scumbags in the profession. I find the pharmaceutical sales industry, for example, many times more loathsome than the industry of law, and it continually amazes me how the general public doesn't hold similar vitriol for the pharma industry as they do for lawyers.

At least one person seems to get this.

 

[tikitime]

Mods..maybe a move to the FFA?

 

[Kinger]

Mods..maybe a move to the FFA?

I second the motion. It was a FFA topic to begin with.

 

[redman]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't aware that burners on stoves were supposed to be operated at a temperature at which you could safely consume the burner.

You knew darn well what I meant. Besides, she wasn't 'consuming' the coffee at the time either, unless she was doing it in such a way that you'd only be likely to see on pay-per-view on a Staurday night.

Yeah, you're right I knew darn well that you were focusing entirely upon responsibility to be exercised by the woman (about which I already said both that I support that notion, as well as that it's recognized legally), and trying to divert attention away from the seller of the goods. That's why I said that you were not being objective here. Grind your axe all you want, but don't get mad when people point out that your agenda is blind to a lot of things.

 

[Christo]

The lady in question also required 3 or 4 skin grafts. Although it sounds stupid of the customer, if you read up on the actuall facts you would find that McDonald's was at fault.

So then, are you saying that if she didn't require that, then McDonalds would not have been at fault or that the jury would have decided differently? Otherwise, there was no reason for you to point that out, if indeed the facts were all that was needed. Unless, of course, you are looking to exploit the emotional aspect of it. Any good lawyer will exploit any angle he can. That doesn't mean the case is decided correctly. Thanks for helping reinforce my point.

Why did you find it necessary to attribute thayman's statement to me?

 

[Christo]

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..

After dealing with "attorneys" like this for ten years, yes.

Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

Not at all.

 

[Phurfur]

I have to give the lawyer credit in coming up with an interesting theory:

1 Pacman was an NFL player.

2 Pacman's presence at the strip club was desirable because he was an NFL player

3 Because Pacman was such a horrible person he shouldn't have been an NFL player any longer and should have been thrown out of the league sometime in 06

4 If he would have been thrown out of the league earlier, then the strip club would not have wanted Pacman there as its guest

5 Thus his status as a league employee was a proximate cause of his being at the club, and causing the melee

Obviously this theory has no chance of succeeding, but as a fellow member of the bar, GB this lawyer for somehow trying to get into the deepest pocket

You applaud him for this? Do you wonder why people have such deep loathing for lawyers?

Admittedly, the plaintiff's lawyer is not necessarily the best role model here. I fully admit that. But his theory is so convoluted and complex, I at least give him credit for creativity points for finding a way to get the NFL in the case in a fashion that will not likely subject him to judicial sanction for bringing a frivolous action. I don't admire him per se, but more look at him and say "You magnificent *******"

As an aside, I understand the "deep loathing" but it is is often unjustified. This lawyer has a client facing millions of dollars in medical and rehab expenses. The shooter has not been found, and probably has no money even if he is ever found. The lawyer is doing whatever he can within the rules to receive compensation for his client who has suffered tremendously and has no other recourse.

So because of this, a corporation should pay because they have money?

Who is saying the corporation "has to" pay anything? They have lawyers too that are trying to get them out of the case (as I think they should be because they have no responsibility here, I think that is pretty clear.)I'm just saying it is a VERY creative legal theory for a guy that is doing everything within the rules to put money in his clearly injured client's pocket.

If you think this is creative I have some drawings I made in 1st grade you may enjoy. This is no more than "Business as Usual" for the legal profession, it happens every day. The only reason you heard about this is because it involves the NFL. Corporate America goes through this every day.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Why doesn't he sue the titty bar he worked at?

He should also sue his grade school teachers for leaving him so ill-prepared for life he had to be a bouncer in his 40's and he should sue the Federal Reserve since the melee started over Pac "making it rain" with American dollars. Mo Money, Mo problems.

 

[tikitime]

I'm fairly sure you are an attorney, right? You really think this guy should be disbarred? Come on..

After dealing with "attorneys" like this for ten years, yes.

Your "bar" (sorry for that) for those that should be allowed to practice the profession is quite high, no?

Not at all.

So if you bring a suit that does not withstand a "motion to dismiss" you should be disbarred?