Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Don Henderson files lawsuit against Wideman & Flames
#41
As has been previously stated, things such as loss of/reduction of pension, benefits, etc. could be added to the future loss - with that being said, $10M dos indeed seem aggressive.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#42
$10M is obviously high and that should be 100% expected. Suits like this don't get filed with the expectation that they get fully litigated and the idea will be to settle out of court. So this is just step 1 of what is conceptually a negotiation and you never start with your best price/offer in any negotiation.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#43
This could end up being a NHLPA/Referee's union battle. Wideman might have made good bucks, but I doubt he could pay $10M or even $5M. The Flames were included in the lawsuit because the first rule of Tort is the law of deep pockets. I don't think the Flames liability can be proven.

The other thing is how long do linesmen work? The NHL starts to weed them out at some point because they can't keep up. So after a career of 21 years (or so) how long would Henderson's career have continued? How long before he would before his pension was fully vetted? I think the court could rule in favour of loss of income (assuming they establish malice and intent on Wideman's part), but punitive damages for loss of enjoyment, etc. won't fly.

Reply
Thanks given by:
#44
Insurance would pay for Wideman, no?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#45
that was an extremely violent hit, I hope he gets what he is looking for.

I don't buy the "Wideman was on queer street" argument either.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#46
(2017-04-21, 12:13 PM)ZappaScores Wrote: Insurance would pay for Wideman, no?

I'm not sure insurance would cover a deliberate act that would injure another even if it occurred in the street. This is why this could turn into a heck of a court battle.

Reply
Thanks given by:
#47
I can't fathom Wideman going out of pocket for this - the players' union will have his back.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#48
He will get his wages covered. his medical covered and compensated for any future pain. Even in Canada thats the normal for incidents like this.

Who has to pay for it will be the more interesting part.

I'm assuming most of his expenses would be covered under his benefits. No way a referee at the highest level isn't covered.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#49
From the list of linesmen from the NHL Official Association site, the average number of years experience is 14.6 years with a standard deviation of 8.7 years. Don Henderson at 23 years is right on the edge of 1 sd. (There are only 7 linesmen with more experience out of the 38 in total). The highest level of experience is 29 years.
So he was possibly cheated out of 6 years if all went well?

The x-factor would be the expectation Henderson had for his post-official career. Did he have a business in the off-season which now he can no longer work? Did he acquire marketable education or training during the off-seasons, which is now all for nought?
I'm assuming his concussion was devastating.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#50
I know that this may not exactly shock anyone, but I have no problem with the lawsuit. The tort system is designed to compensate Plaintiffs who have suffered a loss through the recklessness, negligence, or the deliberate act of the Defendant. I sometimes run into people who are injured by negligence of another person who say they don't want to make a claim because they don't want to be "That guy" or they don't want to be seen as being all about money. In the end, if that is what they want that is fine, that said, I always find it puzzling as I would expect that if I broke the window on the same person's car, or threw a rock through their window I expect that they would almost certainly demand that I compensate them for the damage yet they hesitate when it comes to wanting compensation for bodily injuries which often have consequences that far exceed damage to property.

In Canada, the upper limit for non-pecuniary damages (damages for pain and suffering) was set in 1981 by the SCC in the decision of Lindal v. Lindal at $100,000.00 (subject to rise with inflation). In the 2012 decision of Clost v. Relkie the BC Supreme Court said the limit was now at $342,000.00. Today it is estimated at roughly $360,000.00. What this means is that the most severely injured individual, like the guy who paralyzed would only receive $360,000.00 as compensation for their injuries.

If this does not sound like a lot of money for that severe of an injury you would be correct which is why Plaintiffs can also claim special damages for things such as past and future wage loss, cost of future care, and loss of opportunity. So even though a 30 year old CEO who is paralyzed in a car accident might only get $360,000.00 for their pain and suffering, that award would likely increase into the millions when one takes into account the loss of salary until age 65 and the cost of future care.

With respect to the Wideman case, given what I have heard about Henderson's injuries, I doubt that he would be awarded $200,000.00. Of course I base that solely upon what I have heard in the media. Again though, the big money for this type of case would involve loss of wages and other benefits. If Henderson has lost salary and is medically unable to work, he should be compensated for that, and given what NHL refs likely make I expect that this would be a lot of money.

Keep in mind though that these things are never a slam dunk. The Plaintiff (Henderson) will have to prove that he suffered injuries and that those injuries prevented him for maintaining his employment which is done through medical evidence. The Defendants are entitled to examine those medical records and to cross examine the doctors. They are also entitled to hire their own medical experts to rebut the evidence of the Plaintiff. In short, it is one thing to claim damages, it is another thing entirely to prove them.

In this case I expect that the crux of the defence will be to chip away at the special damages claim. I expect without knowing, that Henderson would have been paid for the time that he has missed due to injury and that he may have access to some type of wage loss benefits. If that is the case then those benefits would need to be set-off against his potential losses.

The Defendants could of course claim that Wideman was not at fault for the incident or that he was not in his right mind, and I expect that they will, that said, given the video evidence I would think that would be a difficult argument to make. They could also plead the defence of volenti non fit injuria, but again, I am not sure that would be effective in this particular case that involves an official rather than another player.

Just my 2 cents.
Liberty And Justice For Most.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#51
(2017-04-21, 10:59 AM)Nanuuk Wrote: This could end up being a NHLPA/Referee's union battle. Wideman might have made good bucks, but I doubt he could pay $10M or even $5M. The Flames were included in the lawsuit because the first rule of Tort is the law of deep pockets. I don't think the Flames liability can be proven.

The other thing is how long do linesmen work? The NHL starts to weed them out at some point because they can't keep up. So after a career of 21 years (or so) how long would Henderson's career have continued? How long before he would before his pension was fully vetted? I think the court could rule in favour of loss of income (assuming they establish malice and intent on Wideman's part), but punitive damages for loss of enjoyment, etc. won't fly.

I'm not sure how tort law works in Canada but in Australia basic rule of thumb is if the employee does something while in the normal course of his job, the company is liable. It's when he goes on a frolic of his own that vicarious liability is severed. 

Here, skating to the bench is arguably within the constricts of Wideman's job. That's where liability would be established. 

Seeing as Canada and Australia are based on the same overarching system (courtesy the Brits) Canada would be quite similar.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)