OT-Apparent "secret agreement" between Orca Bay/Bertuzzi/Crawford in Moore Lawsuit

Submitted by clarkiefromcanada on

It seems that some sort of "secret agreement" was made between Orca Bay, Marc Crawford and Todd Bertuzzi via their lawyers absolving each other of blame and counter suits. Apparently, it  was not disclosed to either the court in Ontario or to Steve Moore's lawyer Tim Danson.

The Superior Court of Ontario has given lawyers defending Todd Bertuzzi, Marc Crawford and the former owners of the Vancouver Canucks seven days to produce a secret agreement they signed that essentially absolves each of them of blame and counter-suits in the multi-million dollar civil claim by former hockey player Steve Moore.

This seems somewhat suspect and the judge appeared to agree...

 

“In my view, the agreement has changed the landscape of the litigation,” Dash wrote in his ruling. Dash also seemed unhappy that the defendants in the case “refused or neglected” to inform Moore’s lawyer, Dansen, on the change in status.

It thinking about why this might have happened...is it possible that such an agreement (if viable) could limit Bertuzzi's and Crawford's personal exposure within the lawsuit/countersuits (or at least give them an idea that they won't then be countersued by Orca Bay - or vice versa) such that they could have an idea what they might have to contribute to any settlement to Steve Moore in terms of compensation. Any MGoLawyers want to weigh in and clarify the implications of this material?

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2012/02/16/19391606.html

polometer

February 17th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^

I grew up a fan of the Avalanche and I am biased.

But I still cannot believe Bertuzzi was allowed to continue in the NHL after this hit.  Jump ahead to 6:56 to get a slowed down replay of the incident. (sorry I had trouble copying the video URL at that specific time)

It only made it easier to root against the wings when they picked up Bertuzzi.

clarkiefromcanada

February 17th, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^

There have been a lot of topics in past years about the Bertuzzi/Moore hit on MGoBlog re: the nature of the offense/response etc. and probably most reasonable observers (i.e., those not influenced with homer glasses on either side) will identify that you never jump a guy from behind in hockey regardless of the scenario and because of that there is a serious issue of liability at play at this point. I am referencing the norms of "old time hockey".

That said, I was hoping this wouldn't devolve into the "Moore was a coward"/"Bertuzzi was gutless jumping him from behind" debate. Your comments will only cause the Wings die-hards to go all en fuego upon you and (if they could) send you to Bolivian.

I guess if it happens, it happens but it's certainly a tired debate that's been done before.

I'm more interested in this creepy agreement and the MGoLawopshere.

 

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

It was a freak accident. Having screwed around, tackled, wrestled, and generally grab-assed with many friends and teammates on the ice growing up, I'm still shocked that his neck broke.

I'm not defending Bertuzzi because there should definitely be consequences for his actions (I think I'm pretty neutral about him even though he's a Wing; I find myself yelling at him to MOVE more than I'm cheering for great plays), I don't think this incident warranted taking him out of hockey.

I understand I'll probably get downvoted, but these are the conclusions I draw from the incident:

  1. Bertuzzi was wrong. He was punished pretty damn severely. It was an on-ice incident and he didn't use his stick as a weapon. I don't think the courts should be involved. I'm sure someone will lawyer me with some legal precedent - I'm not arguing that, I'm just giving my feelings on this situation.
  2. This would've been avoided had Moore not cheapshot Naslund, the team captain and a guy well-known for his puck skills and finesse play, AND THEN pussied out when Naslund's teammates, notably Bertuzzi, tried to stand-up for him in the context of normal hockey play (re: a hockey fight). Moore fucked up twice. This does not justify breaking a guy's neck, but breaking his neck was never the intention.
  3. This is a prime example of why fighting in hockey is a good thing for the players and the game. 12 guys skating around, playing a physical, high-speed, high-emotion game will lead to opponents getting pissed at each other. Instead of cheap-shot tackling (like Bertuzzi), or using your stick as a weapon (Marty McSorley is the most obvious example but there are more...), guys will square off. When players square off, they don't do either of the above, which are significantly more dangerous, and typically don't get injured. If they do, it's a broken nose or hand, which is a helluva lot less dangerous than breaking your neck or getting whacked in the head with a stick.

Maybe I'm making excuses for Bertuzzi and am an example of the bad part of hockey culture; I don't think so, though. Even looking at it from an Econ point of view, you take a health risk playing any professional sport and are compensated for not only the scarcity of your talent but also for the risk of injury and length of career. Included in that risk is another player breaking the rules of the game and it affecting you.

Bertuzzi got suspended and it sucks to be Moore. I still think the lawsuit should be thrown out.

/rant over

Jon06

February 17th, 2012 at 10:58 AM ^

i think bertuzzi should have been jailed for a few years. i also think mcsorley should have been jailed for a few years. you don't need fighting in hockey if you don't allow violent criminals to get away with no punishment through the criminal law system. it's not that complicated.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^

OK, live in a fantasy world where elite athletes and competitors won't get frustrated or upset in the heat of a professional hockey game.

Go ahead and pretend like using a stick as a weapon or cheap shots from the side/back won't occur if the NHL gets rid of fighting...

Maybe we should rename the Gordie Howe Hattrick and call it the "criminal assault plus a goal and an assist trick" 'cause we all know what kind of classless asshat douchebag Gordie Howe is...

You say it isn't complicated, well I say it isn't as simple as hockey fight = crime. Maybe watch hockey more than on occasion and you will notice a few more subtleties of the game.

jg2112

February 17th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^

Fighting isn't allowed in college hockey, high school hockey, or womens' hockey at any level. How often do you hear stories of those folks using their sticks as weapons, or of female hockey players cheap shotting players from behind?

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 11:30 AM ^

Kids swinging their sticks is actually quite common and results in a major and game misconduct when called correctly. In college, you saw it happen to our own Steve Kampfer.

Kids and colleges aren't in a professional league (and it's hockey, even the NHL isn't on Sportcenter) so you don't read about it in the papers or see it on ESPN. Also, kids swinging sticks doesn't do the damage that professional athletes can do when swinging sticks.

I can continue if you want to continue throwing them in my wheelhouse...

EDIT: To expand on the youth-professional comparison, it is a relatively common belief that since youth hockey players have so much padding now they don't learn proper respect for their opponent and this is leading to a significant rise in concussions in the NHL. Obviously, I'm not for taking cages off youth hockey helmets, but these are valid points to consider besides "these people are monsters".

jg2112

February 17th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^

Kids swinging sticks in my daughter's youth league get thrown out of the game and have to sit the next game. It's an effective deterrent and it makes the kids stop swinging sticks.

We're arguing about nothing now because we're both arguing for appropriate punishment.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^

No, we are arguing about whether your elementary viewpoint is too simple for a complicated issue.

It would be like saying Rich Rod didn't win more because the Spread football doesn't work in the Big Ten. "Well it didn't work the few times I've watched the NFL and my son's 78er league runs pro-style" is not a supporting argument to this point.

jg2112

February 17th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^

And to hit on your expanded point, I'm working from my living room and staring at my daughter's equipment. The issue at her level isn't "too much padding," the amount of equipment is enough. Kids who get hurt at her level (U8-U10) do so because they can't skate well enough, or they don't have ice awareness.

If you're talking U14 or high school then I'm sorry. I think the padding they all wear is appropriate. I think respecting your opponent also means not charging them when they're not looking, and playing with your skates. I don't recall Nicky Lidstrom having to cheap shot players once in 21 years to get the job done. I tell my girl to emulate her or Natalie Darwitz or Krissy Wendell or Winny Brodt, not Todd Bertuzzi.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^

I am speechless.

Consider someone other than your little daughter for one second. Think about 14-year old kids that are going to end up in the NHL. They are learning their habits THEN. HABITS. Something that occurs over and over. I'm not talking about poor skaters and kids getting hurt. Kids don't get hurt by the things that hurt NHL players because they aren't as big/strong/fast.

If you get hit by an elbow in the head as a peewee and it hurts but doesn't have any real consequence, you learn that you can do it back to other players. That is not respectful hockey. When these 14-year olds end up as 6-2 220 Dion Phaneufs flying around the ice, they can severly injure other players.

That woosh sound was my point flying past your head. I wish i hadn't said anything now because "my daughter does this" claims do not apply.

You and whoever can keep downvoting me, but at least I'm arguing points outside of "Bertuzzi is a terrible person."

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^

See Clarkie, this is what I'm talking about - people that know hockey and poeple that don't know hockey. I can agree with your statements above and I've generally agreed with your opinions on hockey in the past.

But the two posters I'm arguing with refuse to acknowledge that this is more complicated than "Todd Bertuzzi had bloodlust and wanted to kill someone". I'm still in agreement that Bert needed to get a long suspension, which he did. I can't agree with those that make ignorant statements about the game of hockey and walk around thinking they're righteous because they watched the Big Chill and their 6-year old plays minimite.

BlueVoix

February 17th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

I don't think Bertuzzi wanted to kill someone.  I do think he wanted to fight Moore, and when Moore wouldn't accept, Bertuzzi let his anger and stupidity get the most of him.  Bertuzzi made a massive mistake, probably exacerbated by the fact that the Canucks were losing badly, were (and still are) a dirty team, and had a childish coaching staff.  But how is it exactly more complicated than that?  Because hockey is a violent game, players don't have the right to seek redress when they have their career illegally (by the game's rules) ended on one play, by one player?

And please, spare us the "I know hockey better than you because..."  There are ESPN boards where you can all show off your hockey phallus, but I assure you no one cares here.

JDVan

February 17th, 2012 at 3:55 PM ^

"I think respecting your opponent also means not charging them when they're not looking, and playing with your skates."

 

By no means am I am supporting charging; however, when someone is skating with their head down you take it off. I suppose you hate when someone gets "Kronwalled?" Nothing about hitting a player when he does not see it coming is dirty. You are taught to take people off their skates who are not paying attention.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^

I know what you said, but acting like the Bertuzzi incident wouldn't have happened if fighting wasn't allowed is comical.

Calling Bertuzzi a 'criminal' before any prior criminal behavior is laughable. Are you Tom Cruise in Minority Report?

Go watch scrums around the net after a whistle on youtube. You'll see guys go over the back of someone around the net, just like Bertuzzi, hundreds of times throughout the course of the season. People don't talk about them because the player doesn't typically have a freak accident where he breaks his neck.

You're arguing the case as if this was Bertuzzi's intent. Freak play, that's it.

Jon06

February 17th, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^

i think you should try to slow down and read what i'm actually saying this time.

what i said is that fighting doesn't need to be allowed to prevent things like the bertuzzi incident. you might notice that, even though fighting is allowed, the bertuzzi incident happened. so your first paragraph is pretty buckeye.

what part of bertuzzi being a violent criminal do you not understand? the part where grabbing the shirt of somebody who is trying to skate away, punching them in the head, and falling on them is violent? or the part where aggravated assault and battery is criminal? or the part where a violent criminal is someone who has committed a violent crime? none of this seems difficult. i mean, you don't have to intend to break someone's neck for it to be criminal to punch them in the head from behind when they're trying to get away from you. so your second paragraph is also buckeye.

if seeing people doing what bertuzzi did "hundreds of times throughout the course of a season" is one of the "subtleties of the game" i'd get to see if i watched more hockey, i'm glad i don't. seems pretty buckeye.

and it wasn't a "freak play" because it wasn't a play. it was an attack. what i'm arguing is that bertuzzi punching someone in the head from behind is a violent, criminal act that should've have had serious consequences through the criminal justice system. it doesn't matter if he meant to break the guy's neck or not. if you want to show me a bunch of guys doing the same thing, i'm happy to point out again and again that all of them are guilty of criminal acts and should be punished for them. buckeye yet again.

freejs

February 20th, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^

You seem to have difficulty with that incredibly simple concept and yet you regularly belitte the people disagreeing with you, with an arrogance that could only stem from knowing that you're playing on home ice. Bertuzzi's act was repulsive, and I find the defenses of him here to be repulsive.

What Vernon Gholston did to Lewan when he attempted to dislocate his elbow or shoulder was outside the normal course of violence of that game, was an intentional act, and should have drawn serious repercussions. What Bertuzzi did was even more vile, as the consequences could have been (and were) more severe, what with the whole hard sheet of ice thing in the equation. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 17th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

Sorry, but as a "casual observer" of the game, your opinion has holes in it.  Because like any casual observer of any situation, all you ever saw was the replayed-over-and-over sound bite.  You're calling Bertuzzi's attack a "violent, criminal assault" without the slightest consideration that the entire game of hockey is a violent, criminal assault by legal standards.  Try bodyslamming someone into the wall during your next encounter, or facewashing them with snow, or getting into a fistfight, or bothering them with a hockey stick, and see if the police don't get involved.

In other words, you're perfectly willing to accept the rest of hockey as outside the realm of normal judgment because it's a hockey game, but you want a 60-second highlight of it judged by legal standards.  No.  Judge it by hockey standards.  And I think Sushi did a perfectly good job of summing up the hockey standards.

kgroff531

February 17th, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^

You hit the nail on the head. Having read the whole thread, seems we have a debate between those that have played and/or watch a lot of hockey versus those that watch hockey highlights.

Played my whole life from AAA (Caesars!) to Junior A (Compuware...minor, I know) and can say without a doubt that those that play the game understand certain elements that casual fans will never. The fighting comments are a perfect example. I recall the first fight on a team I played for at around age 14. I have seen line fights involving high school age players. It happens. Hockey is a unique game, good and bad. If you don't like it, don't watch.

PS- I wonder if some of the posters believe that Suh should be "thrown in jail for a few years" for some of the antics he pulls on the football field. Perspective.

justingoblue

February 17th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

I played at competitive levels for fourteen years and have refereed higher levels than that for seven; I am very confident in my abilities to assess a situation, especially from an official's point of view.

That said, just because what Bertuzzi did wasn't either unprecidented or intentional doesn't mean he was given an appropriate punishment. A match was called on the ice, which in every other level can result in a lifetime ban from that orginazation (I assume the NHL has the same maximum penalty, but my quick Google couldn't find the wording I wanted), so there would be precident for that ruling had it come down. I don't think he deserved a lifetime ban, but twenty games was not enough; he should have been out for 2005 as well. Even if an action isn't intended to cause the harm it did, Bertuzzi is responsible for the outcome (and that's an accepted principle of hockey), which was pretty horrific, both for Moore and the perception of the NHL.

So, yea, personally, I think Bertuzzi got off easy, and I honestly think it's awful that he attempted to settle the case for $350,000.

BlueAggie

February 17th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

I can't believe I'm wading into this mess, but here goes:

I agree with almost everything you said, but a couple of points:

-the IIHF upheld Bertuzzi's NHL suspension, so he wasn't allowed to play overseas during the lockout. This is obviously less punishment than a missed NHL season, but of the lockout hadn't happened, I think the NHL might have given him a one year ban.

-my understanding is that Bertuzzi initially offered substantially more than $350K, but was turned down. If Moore's parents are going to sue for $1MM+ for emotional damage, then I have no problem with Bertuzzi low balling the settlement offer. It's all legal posturing at this point.

justingoblue

February 17th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^

I was unaware of a prior settlement offer. If he did make an offer I'd call reasonable (no, I don't think Moore is being reasonable at $35m or whatever) then that changes my opinion on that aspect big time; his lawyers need to do what they need to do.

The IIHF thing is kind of whatever to me. Sure, it hurt Bertuzzi, but it didn't really help the NHL. One thing I definitely belive is that Bertuzzi hurt the perception of the NHL in a real way, so there's a factor even beyond being punished for the Moore hit.

clarkiefromcanada

February 18th, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^

As to determining what is "reasonable" I imagine the courts will have to look at limitation on earning capacity for Moore secondary to the injury following Bertuzzi's attack. As to the amount I imagine it falls somewhere between the earnings of Moore's less talented brother Domenic and Bertuzzi. Could he have reasonably earned $36 million since the time of his injury? In the prime of his career it is certainly not unreasonable. You might or might not like Steve Moore (and it shouldn't matter if you are a Wings/Avs/Canucks fan) but the guy could absolutely play and this is the tragedy of the situation (apart from the horrific injury).

I don't fault Moore's parent's much; if someone attacked your son/daughter in a malicious and unprovoked manner (Moore fought Matt Cooke in the 1st period met "the code") with their back turned you might want your legal remedy. If a person feels truly wronged they will take whatever avenues might be available to them. 

justingoblue

February 23rd, 2012 at 8:40 PM ^

Maybe I was unclear. What I meant by "reasonable" is that Moore can't seriously expect Bertuzzi to settle out of court at that figure, and I was saying it in response to what Bertuzzi's potential offer should have been (after I said $350k was ridiculous).

If Moore said "$36m or we go to court", Bertuzzi should have lowballed the settlement and gone ahead with the proceedings, and I wouldn't fault him or his lawyers for that.

Jon06

February 20th, 2012 at 9:29 AM ^

Sorry, but as a causal observer of me, your opinion has holes in it. I virtually never watch highlights (of anything). I watch college hockey and some local teams at various levels. I don't watch the NHL very often because NHL "hockey culture" is primarily made up of people defending ridiculously violent behavior with no actual hockey value. In other words, I'm perfectly willing to accept fighting, run-of-the-mill penalties, and other rough play as outside the realm of normal judgment because all parties to the game consent to play by rules that allows that stuff, but I want a three-week build-up to a premeditated criminal act that ended a man's career judged by legal standards. (Incidentally, I also want a bunch of fools on this thread to stop presupposing they can read between the lines of my comments, when their supposed insights involve a bunch of stuff I never said or suggested.)

Yeoman

February 17th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^

If this is a valid argument, independently of the history of the game, why don't we allow fighting in football, where a vicious hit can lead to paralysis? Or basketball to keep players from undercutting? Or soccer, which isn't nearly as violent but where it's pretty easy to destroy a player's leg if you have a mind to (and I've seen it deliberately done at least once)? Why is it only hockey players who need this outlet to avoid resorting to dangerous on-field retialiation?

North American professional hockey is the only sport I can think of in which the players are expected to resolve their differences themselves on the field of play through fisticuffs. The only thing I can think of that's similar is baseball, first before the Ray Chapman beaning and again in the 60s and 70s, when pitchers were expected to use the threat of a beaning to enforce informal rules. It took the death of a player to force change the first time (and the changes were massive--it isn't an accident that the dead-ball era died the same year as Chapman).

A culture has developed in the NHL in which fighting is the accepted way of sorting things out. It isn't the only way possible--a look at European professional hockey would seem to show that--but it isn't easy to shift from one mode to the other.

TheDirtyD

February 17th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^

Oh well maybe Steve Moore shouldnt be trying to hurt people what goes around comes around. Bert never intended to break his neck but yea im sure he tried to hurt him. So do most people when they hit one another. Freak accidents happen. So when Richard Zednik gets his skate cut by his teamate i guess he should sue because his teamates should be in perfect control of his legs. No, fighting is part of hockey and its a rough sport its a risk you take when playing that you might actually die. Just another dirty Avs player who got hurt. The league was doing a piss poor job or policing itself those days. The Steve Moore injury may have never occrued if the league would have actually done something to him for the hit on Naslund. That hit today would warrent a suspension. Players were having to police things themselves back then. If you remember Bert was grabbing and talking to moore for a good length of time before he got punched perhaps maybe if hed stop being scared and fight and own up to his actions he wouldnt have gotten hurt. You don't see me crying because I have pins in my shoulder and dont have full range of motion due to some French Canadian. Did I sue no because its called a mans sport for a reason. Suck it up and play like one. . If you never played hockey at a high level you wont understand why it happened and why it isnt a big deal. 

clarkiefromcanada

February 17th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^

We both know the norms of "old time hockey".

You don't jump a guy from behind. Never. Circumstances don't matter. You don't do it. We coach kids from their first years not to hit from behind. When they get to body contact they can't hit from behind and when they reach an age and level where fighting is allowed you coach that you never hit a guy from behind. Bertuzzi hit Moore from behind. 

Everything else surrounding the debate is noise and rationalization.

If you don't jump the guy from behind none of this happens and it's not like he wouldn't have enjoyed many years of potential to beat on Steve Moore. 

TheDirtyD

February 17th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^

Steve Moore knew of bertuzzi behind him he was talking and grabbing at him for a good 8 seconds before the event occurred. He should have turned around and confronted Bert. This is perfectly fine with me he have him every chance to turn around and he refused. There are so many dirty little things that occur during a game that have potential to be serious but they never generally end up that way. Also for people who think fighting doesn't happen in college or midgets or bantams it does. How do I know well I've been in several of them and gotten jumped from behind

BlueVoix

February 17th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^

Or, since the Avs were winning 8-2 and Moore had already fought Cooke in the first period, he could ignore him, like you're supposed to do.

 

this is perfectly fine with me he have him every chance to turn around and he refused.

Noted. Next time I yell at a person from behind for 8 seconds in a sports game, I have license to punch them in the back of the head.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^

Orrrrr since the Avs were winning by such a great margin, Steve Moore doesn't run the opponents leading scorer, captain and well-known finesse player.

Not justifying Bertuzzi, just saying it's more complicated than most of the detractors here make it out to be...

Bertuzzi didn't seek out Moore because he was mad at life.

Hardware Sushi

February 17th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^

I'm sorry, I admit I was wrong. Got them mixed up. Moore's hit on Naslund happened when the game was 0-0.

Moore hit the head of leading scorer in the league with his shoulder/elbow when he didn't have the puck on his stick. Moore was playing out of control.

Bertuzzi is still at fault, but it's not like Bertuzzi tried to fight Moore over nothing and the injury was freak in nature.

BlueVoix

February 17th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^

While we all know why Bertuzzi went after Moore, it doesn't excuse the actions of Bertuzzi.  Moore turned down Bertuzzi, which should have been the end of it.  Injuries being "freak in nature" don't get play in court; the intent does, and the intent was to harm.  This wasn't a grab from behind by the goal after a drive to the net.  This was an attempt to blindside a player.

This really isn't that far off from what Tropp and Conboy did to Kampfer.  I suspect you wouldn't be defending Bertuzzi so strongly if he wasn't on the Red Wings.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 17th, 2012 at 3:18 PM ^

What Conboy did was reasonably similar.  What Tropp did is the worst thing I've ever seen in hockey, period, exclamation point - worse than McSorley and Bertuzzi combined.  Have to separate those two if you're going to make a realistic comparison.  Hell, even Conboy appeared to realize Tropp had gone too far and exchanged words with Tropp before the mob got there.

TheDirtyD

February 17th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^

Let's see if your best player was cheapt shotted and targeted. If you were playing professional hockey where people have complete and total control of how they hit people. Where there is a code amongst players. But if you did do that at least that person is smart enough to turn around and defend himself or say something back. Instead he just skated along like he was deaf. If you actually played hockey beyond adult or house leagues such as high level jr's or college you would comepletely understand. Even a die hard fan doesnt understand what goes on out there. This is why current players dont hate Todd Bertuzzi (who's actually quite respected amongst his peers) most players in the league can't stand people who cry like this message board is doing EX: Sidney Crosby.  Hockey is a mans game if you hurt someone good deliberatly someones going to go after you until your hurt. Or you defend yourself. When Darren McCarty jumped claude no one here objected. Somehow Lemiux knew it was happening in 1 second he was defending himself while being punched. Moore's own lack of understand of the situation is a contibuting factor to this.