Sued for not stopping a fight?

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Well, if he wasn't there and the guy who committed the assault wasn't working for him that night anyway (as determined by the jury), I agree with you. I don't see how it's Iverson's fault at all.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

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.

As I read it of the two men who are alleged to have beat up this guy one was a regular bodyguard of Iverson but despite being with Iverson on the night was not working for him. Which tbh sounds a little convenient given the lawsuit. The other alleged assailants alibi is the person being sued... again - just a little too convenient. But hey - I didn't sit though an entire trial while a very highly paid defense attorney defended Iverson and still come to the conclusion he wasn't being entirely forthcoming about his actions.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

But hey - I didn't sit though an entire trial while a very highly paid defense attorney defended Iverson and still come to the conclusion he wasn't being entirely forthcoming about his actions.

Its pretty unlikely that that's what the jury did, tho. Its far more likely they saw a rich young gangsta and decided to smack him one, regardless of the facts.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

As I read it of the two men who are alleged to have beat up this guy one was a regular bodyguard of Iverson but despite being with Iverson on the night was not working for him. Which tbh sounds a little convenient given the lawsuit. The other alleged assailants alibi is the person being sued... again - just a little too convenient. But hey - I didn't sit though an entire trial while a very highly paid defense attorney defended Iverson and still come to the conclusion he wasn't being entirely forthcoming about his actions.

So testimony that sounds too "convenient" isn't good testimony? With that kind of bias showing, you'd probably not have even made the jury in the first place.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

So testimony that sounds too "convenient" isn't good testimony? With that kind of bias showing, you'd probably not have even made the jury in the first place.

As I said - maybe if it was presented to me more thoroughly by the defense I would be buying it, but from the information I have available it sure sounds a bit suspect. Also how long did this fight take?! Iverson was there at the beginning of the fight when he wanted the VIP room but left the club before it got serious? I've seen a couple of bar fights and their time is normally measured in seconds - Iverson must have been running pretty fast to have left the club before things got serious.

 

[Moosashi]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Based on what I've learned so far, Iverson would be liable if the jury found the bodyguard was his employee and acting as a bodyguard at the time, regardless of whether Iverson lifted a finger to stop the fight or not. Iverson isn't liable for failing to be a good Samaritan, but because employers are liable for the torts of their employees when committed within the scope of employment. But it should also be noted that "employee" has a legal definition (more or less) and it's not simply anyone to whom you give money in return for services.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

...employers are liable for the torts of their employees when committed within the scope of employment.

This is generally true. But is a bodyguard giving an un-ordered beat down acting within the scope of his employment? Especially when the bodyguard isn't even working that night?

 

[Johnny]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

This is generally true. But is a bodyguard giving an un-ordered beat down acting within the scope of his employment? Especially when the bodyguard isn't even working that night?

The employer went up and found the victim in the VIP room. he told the victim to leave. The victim refused. The employ then for separate reasons went and beat up the victim as the employer watched.

The employer then to escape a legal backlash made it seem like the employee was not in his service at the time. Although it would be hard to prove it in every detail it's safe to say that justice was served.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

If he's not working that night, is he even an employee? We'd need to know the contractual arrangement between the two.

So far, what I've seen is a lot of people assuming some facts and then deciding to stick it to the guy with millions of dollars.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

The employer went up and found the victim in the VIP room. he told the victim to leave. The victim refused. The employ then for separate reasons went and beat up the victim as the employer watched.

The employer then to escape a legal backlash made it seem like the employee was not in his service at the time. Although it would be hard to prove it in every detail it's safe to say that justice was served.

The testimony was that the club owner asked the men to go to other seats, not iverson or his agents.

"Martin 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."
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets/2007-06-27-iverson-assault-trial_N.htm

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Facts aren't important when you have the chance to take money from a rich person.

 

[SnickerSnack]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

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

What's with the passive-aggressive hostility? Very strange behavior in this neighborhood.

Hmm. I don't know for sure what the law says about that (and it may vary widely in different areas). But, he is culpable. If the law doesn't hold him liable, it should. If you think the boss is in no way responsible, then your ideas make no sense to me.

The boss brought him to my home. He assaulted me, and the boss just watched. The boss is culpable.

What specifically is wrong with that?

Facts aren't important when you have the chance to take money from a rich person.

Integrity isn't important when you have lots of money.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Your post offends me. Please give me your employer's name so I can sue.

Maybe my ideas make no sense because they are based on personal responsibility, and not the ability to seek money from the guy with the deeper pockets.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

So far, what I've seen is a lot of people assuming some facts

That swings both ways. If I don't know all the facts, I find it hard to whip up a good righteous indignation one way or the other.

Not that you and Garbad seem to have had much of a problem.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Um, every statement I made I supported with facts.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Um, every statement I made I supported with facts.

Your original post:

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?

The link you provided does not say:

1) The injury was fake.
2) That the bodyguard was not (allegedly) on duty at the time.

Based on the facts you presented originally, your righteous indignation is not justified.

Then you and Aero decided to have a pity party where you decried how the system is stacked against rich people, and how being liable for watching while your bodyguard beats up a guy who's in your seat is somehow the same as being liable if your taxicab driver runs over someone.

Poor showing, in my opinion. :no:

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Your original post:

The link you provided does not say:

1) The injury was fake.
2) That the bodyguard was not (allegedly) on duty at the time.

Based on the facts you presented originally, your righteous indignation is not justified.

Then you and Aero decided to have a pity party where you decried how the system is stacked against rich people, and how being liable for watching while your bodyguard beats up a guy who's in your seat is somehow the same as being liable if your taxicab driver runs over someone.

Poor showing, in my opinion. :no:

Sorry, but you're an idiot. I hereby assert that you are a donrei alt.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Sued for not stopping a fight?

Sorry, but you're an idiot. I hereby assert that you are a donrei alt.

If you're going to troll, at least do it with style (Ask Johnny for lessons, he's quite good :thumbsup: ).