OT: Reggie Bush Suing St. Louis
I had not seen this posted (please delete if I missed it, MODS), but Reggie Bush is apparently suing the city of St. Louis because of the potentially career-ending knee injury he received playing in the city-owned Edward Jones Dome.
I REALLY hope this doesn't turn into a debate about attorneys or tort reform or whatever, but it sure seems to me Bush has a slam-dunk case here. Another player was injured a few weeks earlier, and now the city/stadium is rushing to cover the concrete that caused the injury before the Rams next home game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report--reggie-bush-h…
November 9th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
its an actual question that will arise in the case. Was he aware that it turned to cement and became very slippery? Certainly he had played in the stadium before and knew the layout, was the condition open and obvious to the extent that liability should be excused or mitigated and did he take all possible steps to avoid the injury. If he knew it was there, why did he not make efforts to stop earlier? Neither of the arguments are likely winners, but they are possible arguments nonetheless.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
Yeah I saw the video.
The guy makes a living on running, one of the premier runners in the world, a back that can change direction on a dime to hit holes and avoid tackles, and he cannot stop him self from running into a wall after 15 yards?
November 9th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
Problem with this is that Missouri doesn't seem to follow the open and obvious standard. Woo reasonable care.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
That was basically outdoor carpet laid over concrete. Not a soft surface to play on at all.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
I can't remember who it was (maybe a Bears player? Willie Gault?), but one one play the guy tore both ACLs simultaneously on that death trap turf.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
That Metrodome turf cost Billy Sims his career. He was unbelievable. Shame he didn't get a longer career.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^
Tony Boles as well.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
This is a baseball thread now?
November 9th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
Nevermind, not worth discussing.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
It sucks that the city of St. Louis will have to pay for what should be the Rams' responsibility, but no dome should have exposed concrete anywhere near the playing surface.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^
All NHL players should sue for injuries caused by that hard ice - I mean really, what where they thinking? It should have been padded ice.
Some of those wood floors in the NBA/NCAA are also just too hard.
The pads use to tackle and check players in the NFL and NHL are really hard too.
And let's not forget baseballs, bats, pucks, sticks.
And don't get me started on tubas, cameras, and clipboards when players run into the band, media and coaches on the sideline. And benches and water jugs!
November 9th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
This probably goes without saying, but cleats are designed for grass / turf the way that skates are designed for ice, etc. All of the things you mention (including clip boards and water jugs) are a fundamental part of the sport. Concrete is not a fundamental part of a football game.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
There is concrete from the locker room all the way to the field.
I guess the players should wear birkenstocks until they get to field since cleats are sooo unsafe on concrete.
Better stop this:
You know running on concrete in cleats to go touch the banner. Since 1927 no lawsuits Michgan must have safer concrete.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
And the hockey players walk on a carpet to get from the dressing room to the ice.
So are you asserting that there would be no risk of liability if Yost Arena laid a carpet over the ice next to the boards? Because hockey players are able to walk on carpet, just like football players are able to run forward on concrete?
November 9th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^
Now that little nugget from childhood is going to be playing in my head for the next 3 hours.
November 9th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^
NO, a Moran....
November 9th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^
for the win.
November 9th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Looking at the video he had more than ample time to stop IMO. He gets pushed OB at the 18 but then doesn't reduce his speed until he is on his butt at the 28. He basically ran 15 yards after he was out of bounds. Why they don't have turf all the way to the wall or at least a carpet over that concrete is questionable though. At the end of the day he had plenty of time to stop and ran onto a slippery surface by choice. It is hard to see this one going against the city.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
Except that multiple players have been injured on that concrete track. As MGrowOld posted below, the Browns' lost their QB to the exact same problem the week before Bush's injury. There's no question that it's a hazard.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
So this is one for the NFLPA to take up.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^
That's probably what will push Bush's case to the win category - prior injuries would show that there's an issue that St Louis should have reasonable addressed.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
Are they still hoping to move to LA? I have not kept up with that storyline.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
Why yes, I have been injured by a tortilla.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
Just two weeks earlier the Browns QB Josh McCown was also injured when he slipped on the same track and hit the wall.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
from that cheerleader though
November 9th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
Cheerleader lol
November 9th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
November 10th, 2015 at 12:39 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Here's the thing about getting sued that most people don't realize: As soon as someone files, the defendant has financially lost (at least in this country). The cost to defend oneself, even from an easily winnable suit, is stupidly high and so it behooves unscrupulous attorneys to file suits like this one...as if Bush hadn't seen the concrete before he played there. The city will almost certainly settle for a large amount of money because defending costs twice as much or more, as losing, which seems to be common in our wildly unaccountable country, is outrageously expensive.
And, as I've recently discovered, effing "insurance" companies are prime instigators of these suits; their insured files a claim and they immediately sue anyone and everyone in an attempt to get someone else to pay the claim. So insurance premiums are used to pay lawyers and A-level execs to sue people, instead of being used to actually pay claims. Broken system.
I'm sorry he's hurt. But I in no way see how this is the fault of the city of St. Louis.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
And if you believe this and you vote for tort reform, you have voluntarily given up your rights.
Children of Thalidomide round 2? Coming right up.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
I remember hearing an interview with a lawyer on Fresh Air years ago (the lawyer had just directed the documentary "Hot Coffee" about the infamous and grossly misunderstood case of the woman who was burned by McDonald's coffee). She was railing against the idea of tort reform and going on about the public attitude that convinces people that litigation is somehow a bad thing and we should effectively get people to actively try and give up their legal rights under the guise of protecting them from frivolous law suits.
It was one of the most effective discussions I have ever heard. Whenever I hear about tort reform or hear people complain about people suing each other, all I can think about is that lawyer just lamenting the fact that the American public has somehow been convinced to just give away one of their core legal rights and somehow feel good about it.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
It's absolutely true.
You have corporations loaded with money who have lobbied government officials for years, and since the McDonalds coffee incident (which was not frivolous in any way) have actually changed the public opinion, into beleiving basically "all lawsuits are bad."
Lawsuits are the only legal recourse you have against wrong doing. And people actually want to give that up because "lol the McDonalds lady" or "our legal system is so backed up because of the frivolous lawsuits" neither of which is true.
If anything it's the corporations that are backing up the legal system by rushing products into market before they are safe or having shoddy quality standards allowing for massive oil spills, environmental damage, etc. It's really sad that people can be so stupid.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
Wasn't the McDonald's lawsuit coffee temperature 20 degrees above thier corporate recommendation or something like that? Corporate recommends 160 degrees while the location had it at 180. somewhere between the two is threshold for scalding. If I recall correctly.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:03 PM ^
I don't remember the specifics, but it was definitely the case that the coffee was legitimately heated to an unsafe temperature (that was, yes, outside the corporate guidelines). The woman who was burned was an elderly woman who required extensive skin grafts on her legs. And I believe the family sued just for the amount of medical costs not covered by insurance - it was a jury that made the massive award (which a judge blocked in the end anyways).
November 9th, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^
1. Can't defendants counter-sue for legal costs to make the plaintiff cover your lawyers' fees if the case is particularly dubious? Just an honest question. I don't know if that is something people can actually do.
2. I don't think the issue is that players (plural - Bush is not the only one to be injured on that concrete; the Browns lost their QB to sliding on that concrete surface the week before Bush was injured) don't know the concrete is there. It's that when professional athletes are running full speed out of bounds, they can't come to a complete stop before they come to the concrete track.
After seeing the Bush play, I remember thinking that Bush looks like he might have been injured by awkwardly trying to stop quickly rather than slow down the way he normally would.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
1. Yes and they routinely do (and should).
November 9th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
1. The judge would have to declare the suit to be frivolous to recoup legal costs from the plaintiff. If you go to trial and win as a defendant you still have to pay your attorney as you use him while the plaintiff more than likely has a contingency arrangement setup where the attornies get 1/3 of the settlement or judgement. Even if you "recoup" your legal costs you still have to pay your defense attorneys up front and then get reimbursed after the judge awards you the legal costs from the plaintiff. Considering attorneys in this case will probably cost $500 an hour or more it can very quickly become more cost effective to just settle if the case can't get thrown out early on. Most personal injury attorneys even send a demand letter prior to filing a suit since the prospect of a lawsuit is so scary they can get a payout before getting the courts involved.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^
You can also seek out sanctions from the other side if their lawyers were engaged in unethical/incompetent behavior.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 11:54 AM ^
Usually you settle for an amount that is less than the original demand. Going to trial is an expensive endeavour.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^
Since the incidents it's been all over major media. There's already a stigma of negative PR.
The suit will be settled but it's more for them to fix it then anything else. It was stupid to be there in the first place.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
I'm not a lawyer, but the whole "Bush knew there was concrete there" argument seems absurd to me. Football players routinely run well beyond the field of play, not by choice but because they have a ton of momentum and can't suddenly stop without possibly injuring themselves. For there to be a slippery, hard surface just a couple of yards past the field is dangerous - and the city recognizes this, or it wouldn't be resurfacing.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
This, the civil court system is literally a race to file first. Get an attorney on contingency so you don't have to pay a defense attorney by the hour and file your suit first.
Full disclosure I was sued by a guy the cops picked up in our neighborhood on suspicion of casing houses. He was bleeding, cut on his hand, and he claimed my dog bit him. Now funny thing is that my backyard is fenced so the only way for my dog to bite him is if he trespassed on my property. More than likely he cut himself trying to jimmy open a window and when the cops busted him lied about my dog. With no real way to disprove my dog bit him short of some expensive forensic testing the lawyers said to just pay him to make it go away and have the personal injury liability coverage on my homeowners insurance pay for it since all he wanted was 5K. This is why personal injury lawyers get a bad reputation. The lawyer got $1600 bucks to basically write a demand letter. Great system we have where you can get caught burgling and say a dog bit you and get a 5K payday. That is why insurance premiums are going up. And FYI I have a labradoodle, not known as the most vicious of dog breeds.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
If he was trespassing on your property (no legal right to be there) then it's doubtful that most courts would find you liable for a dog bite (since it's not a vicious breed)... and the burden of proof would be on him as a plaintiff to prove that your dog bit him. I don't really see the basis for what your attorney told you; however, it may end up costing more to litigate (hence settlement, which is covered by your policy), but in this circumstance I doubt the cost would be that great since it doesn't seem that likely to make it out of the pleading stage.