Sued for not stopping a fight?

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
Sued for not stopping a fight?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9374830/Iverson-must-pay-$260K-for-not-stopping-bar-fight

Basically the key to winning a lawsuit is 1) an unlikable, wealthy defendant and 2) injury, and a fake one is fine. Duty, breach, causality are all pretty much irrelevant.

What do you think?
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9374830/Iverson-must-pay-$260K-for-not-stopping-bar-fight

Basically the key to winning a lawsuit is 1) an unlikable, wealthy defendant and 2) injury, and a fake one is fine. Duty, breach, causality are all pretty much irrelevant.

What do you think?
1. The injuries were faked?
2. Isn't he the body guard's employer? Doesn't that make the things the bodyguard does "on the job" partly his responsibility, if he knowingly turns a blind eye?

If I'm a the CEO of a major corporation, and I know someone is cooking to books and do nothing about it (even if I don't tell them to), can't I be held responsible too if someone finds out that I knew and did nothing?

I'm kinda surprised it was only a civil suit and not a criminal one.



 

PFSS

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

2. Isn't he the body guard's employer? Doesn't that make the things the bodyguard does "on the job" partly his responsibility, if he knowingly turns a blind eye?

If I'm a the CEO of a major corporation, and I know someone is cooking to books and do nothing about it (even if I don't tell them to), can't I be held responsible too if someone finds out that I knew and did nothing?
Particularly if it looks like beating up people/cooking the books might be in your employees job description.


 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Duty, breach, causality are all pretty much irrelevant.
Well it's hard to talk to those points since almost none of them were in the article. Even assuming facts very favorable to the plaintiffs though, I have a hard time figure out how Iverson could be held liable.



 

Dirty_Zulu

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

So the best place to get beatup is at an affluent bar or nightclub so you can at least sue everyone in the 50 feet radius.
 

SnickerSnack

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Well it's hard to talk to those points since almost none of them were in the article. Even assuming facts very favorable to the plaintiffs though, I have a hard time figure out how Iverson could be held liable.
He watched while his employee beat someone while on the job. He paid his body guard to beat the man. And you don't see how he is liable?

So the best place to get beatup is at an affluent bar or nightclub so you can at least sue everyone in the 50 feet radius.
Or, you can sue the guy who paid your attacker to attack you.


 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

He watched while his employee beat someone while on the job. He paid his body guard to beat the man. And you don't see how he is liable?
Your first sentence and your second sentence do not necessarily match up. Paying someone to beat someone else up is much different than someone in your employ beating someone up.

Do you think you should be liable if your taxi driver runs someone over? Afterall, you are paying them to drive you around.



 

Telzen

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

You are paying for a short service, you aren't the taxi drivers boss.
 

SnickerSnack

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Your first sentence and your second sentence do not necessarily match up. Paying someone to beat someone else up is much different than someone in your employ beating someone up.

Do you think you should be liable if your taxi driver runs someone over? Afterall, you are paying them to drive you around.
It isn't different at all if that person's primary function is being a strongarm.

Here's a scenario: if you contract some workers to come do some modifications to your house, and the owner of the company comes with them, and one of the workers stabs you repeatedly, and the boss does nothing whatsoever to aid you, is he liable? (I suspect that the employee's job is irrelevant.)
Your second question:

If you have a driver who is your fulltime employee, and he runs someone over, and you do nothing at all to help the person injured by your employee, who was working for you at the time, then yes, it is the same. (basically what telzen said)


 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

It isn't different at all if that person's primary function is being a strongarm.
You're equating hiring personal protection with assault. I don't buy it. There are plenty of body guards that don't just beat the crap out of guys at bars.

When you're at work, if you go beat the crap out of a co-worker, do you expect your boss to be on the hook? The CEO of your company?



 

SnickerSnack

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

You're equating hiring personal protection with assault. I don't buy it. There are plenty of body guards that don't just beat the crap out of guys at bars.

When you're at work, if you go beat the crap out of a co-worker, do you expect your boss to be on the hook? The CEO of your company?
No, I'm not. I'm equating hiring personal protection and doing nothing at all while your hired protection assaults someone for no reason with being culpable in an assault. If you can't see that, then we must disagree on what the words mean.

To your second question, yes, if your boss/CEO is present and openly condones it. That's obvious.

Did you give any thought to my hypothetical? How about you answer my question (hired work) instead of posing a dissimilar hypothetical?





Let me give another hypothetical incase you didn't like the first one:

Say I go to Best Buy, and while I'm there, one of the cashiers attacks me and chases me around the store for ten minutes. Assume also that no other employee tries to help, and the store manager just watches. Is it reasonable for me to sue Best Buy for a wad of cash and the firing of every employee that was there?


 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

When you're at work, if you go beat the crap out of a co-worker, do you expect your boss to be on the hook? The CEO of your company?
If they were standing there watching me, taking no action?

Yep, I expect they'd get sued.



 

BobCox2

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

I'd get sued if it was my Dog, with a Human Agent it's more of a judgment call - that's why we have jury's - In my mind he had no responsibility to wade in and get physical to break it up but he would have saved some Money if people had heard him yell out "Break it up, Buddy your gonna get me sued" to his employee.

But Hindsights really 20/20.

The Big question is did he have the right to throw the guy out of the seat (was it his) and if so was his bodyguard only doing what he could have legally done in self defense when the other guy started swinging instead of clearing out? After all that's what the Bodyguard is paid for. I bet thats not the case or the clubs Bouncers who do have the right to toss the guy would have done it.
Both those facts are missing from the article.

I did some digging here is what little I found:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets/2007-06-27-iverson-assault-trial_N.htm
Martin said the fight started when Godfrey, a third-degree black belt in karate, sucker-punched Terrance Williams, a freelance bodyguard who sometimes works with Kane. He said Williams then fought back.
Martin said Williams was not working for Iverson and Kane that night and was at the bar on his own, a claim Lattimer disputes.
Martin (the defense lawyer) denied that anyone associated with Iverson told Godfrey and Kittrell to leave. He said it was the Eyebar's owner who asked them to make room for the star because it was good for business.
A similar lawsuit against Iverson was filed last year over an alleged assault by his security team at a Hampton, Va., nightclub. That incident occurred less than two weeks before the one in Washington.

More facts would help settle this, I'm pretty sure the jury had them even if the media lacks reporting them.

FYI all The shear number of fights/crimes I find Iverson involved in over the years seems to support this.

At 17, Iverson was convicted on a felony charge of "maiming-by-mob" and drew a 15-year prison sentence, with 10 years suspended. He spent four months at the Newport News City Farm before Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder granted him a pardon. In 1995, the Virginia Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, citing insufficient evidence of his guilt.

Iverson married Tawanna Turner on Aug. 3, 2001. In the summer of 2002, Iverson became national news when it was reported that while looking for Tawanna, who left their home after a domestic dispute, he threatened two men with a gun. Philadelphia police hit Iverson with 14 charges, including 12 felony. All were dropped when his accusers' testimony didn't hold up in court.
Search Iverson Fights or see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Iverson#Controversy

It's a bit hard to find facts what with Fame and Money, but he has the Pardon, a gag order ( http://www.newser.com/archive-crime-courts-news/1G1-89409900/hearing-gag-order-set-for-iverson-caseknight-ridder-newspapers.html ) on Domestic Voilence and people that seem to take money not to show up in court on record.

Seems like a OJ in the making to me.

But then you can watch him make a $100,000 donation to fight crime here
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72cuw_allen-iverson-makes-100000-donation_lifestyle
So he must be a nice guy after all he makes how much?
Sponsor: Reebok
Estimated Value: $5 million a year (lifetime)

After Allen Iverson first signed with the Sixers, he put his signature on a 10-year, $50 million contract with Reebok. In November 2001, he got a lifetime extension on that deal. Terms of this deal weren't disclosed. His signature shoe, "The Answer," was among the top sellers in America. Reebok rebuilt its basketball and clothing lines around him.
Forbes estimates that Iverson made $19 million between June 2002 and June 2003. His 2002-'03 salary was $12.7 million, or about two-thirds of his total income. The initial Reebok deal was worth $5 million a year. Apparently, that annual payout is guaranteed for life. With that in mind, the Reebok check accounts for 26% of his annual pay.

And a last little bit of fun for AJ - search Iverson and cases that involve standing by and doing nothing and you find this one - Funny Huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Strohmeyer

Jeremy Strohmeyer, born October 11, 1978, is a Long Beach, California man who molested and murdered 7-year-old South Los Angeles elementary school student Sherrice Iverson (October 20, 1989May 25, 1997)[1] at Primadonna Resort and Casino in Primm, Nevada, on May 25, 1997.
The case drew national attention by focusing on the safety of children in casinos and on the revelation that Strohmeyer's friend, David Cash Jr., said he saw the crime in progress but did not stop it.[2]
 
Last edited:

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Here's a scenario: if you contract some workers to come do some modifications to your house, and the owner of the company comes with them, and one of the workers stabs you repeatedly, and the boss does nothing whatsoever to aid you, is he liable? (I suspect that the employee's job is irrelevant.)
No, the boss is not liable. The guy who did the stabbing is. Happy?

Iverson should only be liable if he instructed the bodyguard to beat the guy up. Bosses should not be liable for acts committed by employees that are completely of their own volition.

What about this - Iverson hires a bodyguard company, and gets this guy as his bodyguard for the night. Should the bodyguard's boss at the company be liable?

Or what if the bodyguard runs his own bodyguard firm, and is an independent contractor with Iverson. Is Iverson still on the hook?

What if the guy is just Iverson's friend?
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

No, the boss is not liable. The guy who did the stabbing is. Happy?

Iverson should only be liable if he instructed the bodyguard to beat the guy up. Bosses should not be liable for acts committed by employees that are completely of their own volition.

What about this - Iverson hires a bodyguard company, and gets this guy as his bodyguard for the night. Should the bodyguard's boss at the company be liable?

Or what if the bodyguard runs his own bodyguard firm, and is an independent contractor with Iverson. Is Iverson still on the hook?

What if the guy is just Iverson's friend?
Issue - Should iversion be punished for someone else's actions?
Rule - If rich and bad then punish
Analysis - 22 mil a year = rich, young black with a hat real low = bad
Conclusion - Iverson owes a large, arbitrary amount of cash

That's how it all works.



 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Issue - Should iversion be punished for someone else's actions?
Rule - If rich and bad then punish
Analysis - 22 mil a year = rich, young black with a hat real low = bad
Conclusion - Iverson owes a large, arbitrary amount of cash

That's how it all works.
Basically, yes. Sadly, people seem to be of the mentality that regardless of the facts, the rich should pay.



 

PFSS

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

No, the boss is not liable. The guy who did the stabbing is. Happy?

Iverson should only be liable if he instructed the bodyguard to beat the guy up. Bosses should not be liable for acts committed by employees that are completely of their own volition.

What about this - Iverson hires a bodyguard company, and gets this guy as his bodyguard for the night. Should the bodyguard's boss at the company be liable?

Or what if the bodyguard runs his own bodyguard firm, and is an independent contractor with Iverson. Is Iverson still on the hook?

What if the guy is just Iverson's friend?
Which of these accurately represents the relationship between Iverson and his bodyguard?


 

Johnny

Banned
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

He sent his hired thug to beat some guy up and now gets to pay for it. Justice.
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Which of these accurately represents the relationship between Iverson and his bodyguard?
Mr. Godfrey and another patron, David Anthony Kittrell, sued the former Georgetown University guard for $20 million. They said Iverson's entourage beat them in 2005 for refusing to leave the club's VIP section for the basketball star.

The jury found Mr. Kane liable for assaulting Mr. Godfrey, who was awarded $250,000 for pain and suffering and $10,000 for his medical bills. Iverson was found negligent for failing to supervise Mr. Kane. The jury did not find either of the men liable for assaulting Mr. Kittrell.

Plaintiffs' attorney Gregory L. Lattimer told jurors that punitive damages were needed to send Iverson the message that he must take responsibility for the people who work for him. He said Iverson, a Denver Nuggets guard, earns $23 million a year. "If you're going to a send a message to him, you have to take that into account," he said of Iverson's salary, "because he doesn't understand."

"There's been no evidence Mr. Iverson walked into this nightclub with any kind of evil motive or malicious intent to cause harm to anybody," he said.

The lawsuit stated that Iverson was responsible for the brawl because he failed to properly supervise Mr. Kane and Mr. Williams. It did not state that Iverson took part in the fight. The lawsuit also accused Mr. Kane of assault and battery for beating Mr. Godfrey with items that included a bottle. Mr. Williams was not working for Iverson that night and was not named in the lawsuit, but Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Kittrell tried to prove that he has been a de facto security guard for Iverson.

They showed jurors an excerpt of the MTV practical joke show "Punk'd" in which Mr. Williams is seen handling security duties during a setup of Iverson. Mr. Williams said he was merely hamming for the camera. The jury agreed, determining that Mr. Williams was not working for Iverson the night of the brawl.

Iverson testified last week that he didn't see the fight, and that he left the club before the brawl became serious. He said the two men suing him were trying to cash in on his fame and fortune. Iverson's 90-minute testimony was the only court appearance he made during the case.

Mr. Kane denied taking part in the fight, saying he left with Iverson as trouble brewed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/10/jury-awards-260000-in-iverson-case-91919157/

So of the two men found guilty of the beating, one didn't work for Iverson at all. The other was working for Iverson, but said he wasn't there during the attack (and had witnesses for this alibi, namely Iverson). Despite this, Iverson was found responsible for the beating that he says he didn't do.

$250k pain and suffering ca-ching?

And as a parting shot, let me show you the appeal to ignorance the plaintiff's attorney used, a general attack on Iverson with unrelated incidents:
Iverson faces another lawsuit for a nightclub fight involving his security in Hampton, Va. That happened less than two weeks before the incident at Eyebar, in the 1700 block of I Street Northwest.

Mr. Bricker said the two incidents were separate but "it's kind of like Afghanistan affects Iraq, or Iraq affects Afghanistan."
Right.



 
Top