Give it up Moore!!!!!

[monster_bertuzzi]

Fighting Cooke (5'8'' 180 pounds) who NEVER fights isn't much of a punishment. Moore kicked his *** to boot.

 

[Hasbro]

Fighting Cooke (5'8'' 180 pounds) who NEVER fights isn't much of a punishment. Moore kicked his *** to boot.

Gee he's listed at 5'11" 205and had more career fights than Moore.

Considering what a punk cooke is it's a shame that Moore didn't get the certification that Cooke did that protects him from the obligations of answering the bell.

Been missing you in the Avs forum m_B.

 

[Belgian Fan]

I'm pretty shocked by the reactions in this case.

Either way you look at it it's not possible to be "over". Moore had two years (well at this stage 1.5 years but he's not about to step back on the ice for a professional game any time soon I'd think) of his career taken away by Bertuzzi, how is he not supposed to try and get some compensation for that? If you go to work and get run over by a car causing you to miss significant time at your work you'd want compensation too right?

What do you expect him to do? Just let this happen?
Could anyone honestly say they would do the same thing? I wouldn't think so.


I can understand however that people think the amount of damages Moore asked are too high or even ridiculously high, but then again look at the value of other claims brought to court these days...

I'm not sure if he's going to get that amount but I get the feeling he will get a substantial amount. It's one of the general principles of the law in every country: if one person injures another person knowingly and willingly he'll have to pay for the consequences. Regardless weather Moore broke "the code" or not, Bertuzzi's actions were on a whole other level.

 

[CGG]

It's NEVER over. When you're a physical player and throw your checks and injure other players (intentionally or not) you have to be prepared to "throw down" when the said physical play attracts the attention of an enforcer/tough guy.

By refusing to fight Bertuzzi, Moore demonstrated a lack of respect for the role of an enforcer/tough guy and therefore the game which facilitated this incident.

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Trying to argue that it's Moore's fault because he didn't "throw down" again 2 games later after he already fought one guy over a clean hit three weeks earlier. I'd like to see Bertuzzi's lawyer try that ridiculous defence.

Disrespecting this mindbogginly stupid "tough guy" code thing doesn't mean you deserve a cheap shot and a broken neck.

 

[Wetcoaster]

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Trying to argue that it's Moore's fault because he didn't "throw down" again 2 games later after he already fought one guy over a clean hit three weeks earlier. I'd like to see Bertuzzi's lawyer try that ridiculous defence.

It was not even tried in the criminal trial where the standard of proof is much higher than in a civil action. Bertuzzi's lawyer, Len Doust, is a very capable counsel and that is why Bertuzzi pleaded out - there was no viable defence to the criminal charge of assault causing bodily harm. Liability for the tort of battery is a foregone conclusion - it is simply a matter of quantum of damages for the injuries suffered.

Liability will likely be contested for the other actions (civil conspiracy and negligent supervision) and possibly the tort of assault (i.e threats).

 

[mr gib]

westcoaster - do the insurance companies end up paying moore in the end?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Contingency fee agreements were only recently introduced in Ontario (2004????) but they have been used for years in other provinces such as BC. The insurance industry battled hard to keep them out of Ontario because it generally means the defendant has to face a more experienced counsel than would be the case on a fee for service arrangement.

Contingency fee agreements are most common in personal injury claims (such as Moore), product liability cases and class actions and less so in other areas such as breach of contract. In BC contingency fees are NOT permitted in family law cases involving child custody or access and they are only permitted in other types of family law cases with the prior approval of the court.

In BC a claim for personal injury (or death) from a motor vehicle accident, the maximum contingency fee allowed is 33.33% of the amount recovered. In all other cases involving personal injury or death, the maximum allowed is 40% of the amount recovered.

Contingency fee must be in writing and are subject to court review to ensure the fee ultimately paid is fair in all the circumstances. Contingency fee agreements can be reviewed within three months after the agreement was made or terminated.

I believe Ontario has adopted the BC model.

Over the years I have taken cases on contingency that are contested on liability or difficult to prove quantum of damages and that is quite commonplace amongst counsel at least in BC. For many clients but for contingency fees, they would be unable to proceed with a case. I have had to eat some sizeable time invested in cases over the years. In many cases counsel will also finance the expert reports and even living expenses where a client is unable to do so.

For clients with limited resources, this gives them the opportunity to pursue their legal rights where lack of money would otherwise foreclose their opportunity to seek redress. It also encourages the lawyer to be most diligent, work hard and maximize the client's award or settlement. It also means that a person can obtain top flight legal counsel to work on his/her behalf.

While you have contributed far more than usual to this thread, Wetcoaster, and at the risk of hijacking a thread, you are miles off on the benefits of contingency fees. Quite the contrary, contingency fees result in matters being handled by LESS experienced counsel. With contingency fees in place, every two-bit counsel with a law degree and no other qualifications can compete with more experienced counsel who more frequently charge by the hour. Now, I expect that most experienced personal injury counsel probably accept contingency retainers since they are established in Canada now, you also have people bringing actions that have no business being brought.

I am not sure whether the insurance industry had much to do with lobbying against contingencies (admittedly they probably hate them), but I can tell you that there was also a fair bit of resistance in the legal profession in Ontario, the agenda of which is arguably set by the big firms. There were many lawyers who considered contingency arrangements to be champertous and catered to an ambulance-chaser mentality prevalent in the US.

Digression over...

 

[GSC2k2*]

the funny thing is, We're all hypocrites and nobody is really objective on this. Case in point, if Bertuzzi playede on your favourite team, you would be emotionally attached to him and be saying the same thing as canucks fans now(deny it all you want its true). Most people hated Bertuzzi before the incident, so they already had a vendetta against him. I'd probably be saying the same thing as all the bertuzzi haters if i wasnt a nuck fan.

Thus almost all arguements here are useless because you see what you want to see. I think its funny that people are trying to show knowledge of the legal system - its objective and we all have biased views.

I assume you are excluding the posters here who are actually lawyers ...

 

[bottleCAPS]

 

[QYC]

It's all about timing with Moore. He just wants to make others lives miserable. He filed the lawsuit in Denver during an NBA allstar game (i believe) and now the first day of Olympics.

 

[FlyerFan]

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Trying to argue that it's Moore's fault because he didn't "throw down" again 2 games later after he already fought one guy over a clean hit three weeks earlier. I'd like to see Bertuzzi's lawyer try that ridiculous defence.

I'm sorry you can't discern between legal counsel and a hockey perspective.

Disrespecting this mindbogginly stupid "tough guy" code thing doesn't mean you deserve a cheap shot and a broken neck.

I agree, but the bottom line is when you injure another team's captain and best player, you better watch your back. When Moore was challenged by Bertuzzi to fight, he turned his back. That was cowardly and facilitated the incident.

 

[Dream Big]

Athletes who come back after injury

Was watching an Olympic channel featuring an athlete Deidra Dionne-Free style skiing-Olympic bronze medal winner http://www.deidradionne.com/biography.htm.
A broken neck requiring a 7 hour surgery, metal plates, bone grafting. Guess what? She is again in the Olympics competing. Doing twisting aerials no less.

My question is: How hard is Mr. Moore trying to regain game readiness to try out for the NHL. Or is he dogging it in order to cash in on the big one? I feel he is entitled to something however $15 mil seems exorbitant.

Also, If someone who knows can advise about pain and suffering. I heard that there is a limit of $250,000.00 for the worst case. Is the 15 mil for loss of future income realistic if Moore is not attempting to rehabilitate? Don't actually know if he is making an effort. True athletes often compete with injury.

 

[Wetcoaster]

While you have contributed far more than usual to this thread, Wetcoaster, and at the risk of hijacking a thread, you are miles off on the benefits of contingency fees. Quite the contrary, contingency fees result in matters being handled by LESS experienced counsel. With contingency fees in place, every two-bit counsel with a law degree and no other qualifications can compete with more experienced counsel who more frequently charge by the hour. Now, I expect that most experienced personal injury counsel probably accept contingency retainers since they are established in Canada now, you also have people bringing actions that have no business being brought.

I am not sure whether the insurance industry had much to do with lobbying against contingencies (admittedly they probably hate them), but I can tell you that there was also a fair bit of resistance in the legal profession in Ontario, the agenda of which is arguably set by the big firms. There were many lawyers who considered contingency arrangements to be champertous and catered to an ambulance-chaser mentality prevalent in the US.

Digression over...

I disagree - in Canada contingecy fees have been very useful and according to our courts are socially useful.

In Canada there are disincentives against bringing frivolous actions. Unlike what I understand is the case in many US jurisdictions where each party bears its own costs, the losing party is assessed legal costs to be paid to the successful party. The actual legal costs of a Defendant can be awarded against a Plaintiff and on ocassion a Plaintiff's lawyer where a court determines the action should not have been brought in the first place. The Law Societies monitor these contignecy fees pretty closely.

Ontario was the last Canadian jurisdiction to allow contingency fees. The Ontario Court of Appeal pushed the Ontario government into action and found them not to be champertous.

In an application brought by the Estate of Ronald McIntyre, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to decide if contingency agreements were invalid and whether the proposed contingency fee agreement was prohibited. In Ontario, it had been widely accepted that contingency fee agreements were not valid by reason of the Champerty Act which is an old statute which has its basis in an English statute going to back to 1305. Historically, “the doctrines of champerty and maintenance played an important role in the common law in protecting the administration of justice from a variety of real or perceived abuses. At common law, champerty and maintenance were both crimes and torts and, the presence of either, was capable of rendering contracts unenforceable as being contrary to public policy.â€

In 1954, the Canadian Parliament abolished common law crimes, including those of champerty and maintenance but, champerty and maintenance continued to be actionable in tort in Ontario upon proof of special damages. Additionally, in Ontario, the Champerty Act appeared to provide that champertous agreements were forbidden and invalid. The Courts went on to discuss the fact that champerty and maintenance require an element of improper motive. The Court further found that there can be no maintenance, if the alleged maintainer has a justifying motive or excuse. The Court stated that the type of conduct that has been found to constitute champerty and maintenance has changed over time.

The Court went on to a very long and complicated analysis of the statute and the reference of the statute to common law and came to the conclusion that the common law of champerty has always been to protect the administration of justice from abuse. The Court also concluded that they should interpret the Champerty Act to promote the aim of the legislation, that is, to prevent abuse.

The Court then found that, from a public policy standpoint, the attitude towards permitting the use of contingency fee agreements had undergone a significant change over the last 100 years. The Court found comfort in some comments made by the Supreme Court of Canada and also in the fact that every Canadian province and territory, other than Ontario, has enacted legislation or rules to permit the use of contingency fees in certain actions. The Court reviewed the different types of contingency fee arrangements permissible in Canada and in the United States, England, Wales and Australia. The Court also recognized that under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, Ontario permits contingency fee agreements. The Court then concludes: “In my view, it is no longer necessary or desirable to deem contingency agreements per se champertous. Neither the contingent nature of a fee agreement, nor the fact that lawyer’s fees may be paid from the recovery in an action, without more, ought to constitute an improper motive or officious intermeddling for purposes of the law of champerty.â€

http://www.langmichener.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.contentDetail&ID=8574&tID=244

Following this decsion the Ontario government studied the issue and concluded contingency fees were useful and did give clients with limited resources access to experienced counsel. Legislation was then enacted to regulate contincy fee agreements.

The courts in Canada and various studies have concluded that contingency fees gave clients with limited resources access to experienced counsel they would not otherwise be able to retain and it levelled the playing field. That has been my experience over the past 20 years. YMMV.

 

[Wetcoaster]

It's all about timing with Moore. He just wants to make others lives miserable. He filed the lawsuit in Denver during an NBA allstar game (i believe) and now the first day of Olympics.

He filed suit when he did because the one year limitation on the action was expiring in Colorado (February 16, 2005) and the two year limitation was expiring in Ontario (BC has the same limitation for the action) on February 16, 2006.

That is the reason for the "timing".

 

[Wetcoaster]

Was watching an Olympic channel featuring an athlete Deidra Dionne-Free style skiing-Olympic bronze medal winner http://www.deidradionne.com/biography.htm.
A broken neck requiring a 7 hour surgery, metal plates, bone grafting. Guess what? She is again in the Olympics competing. Doing twisting aerials no less.

My question is: How hard is Mr. Moore trying to regain game readiness to try out for the NHL. Or is he dogging it in order to cash in on the big one? I feel he is entitled to something however $15 mil seems exorbitant.

Also, If someone who knows can advise about pain and suffering. I heard that there is a limit of $250,000.00 for the worst case. Is the 15 mil for loss of future income realistic if Moore is not attempting to rehabilitate? Don't actually know if he is making an effort. True athletes often compete with injury.

Moore's problem reportedly is not the neck injury - he has fully recovered from that.

His problem is neurological due to the brain injury he suffered when he was rendered unconscious. He is suffering from PCS. Those injuries can be very difficult and according to the leading expert on concussions, Dr. Karen Johnston of McGill University you cannot push yourself as you would with another type of injury. Pushing yourself just sets back the recovery.

Johnston has worked with a virtual All-Star team of concussion victims. Lindros, who suffered his eighth concussion in January, has been a frequent patient; his 2001 trade from the Philadelphia Flyers to the Rangers wasn't completed until she gave him a clean bill of health.

Last summer Rangers goalie Mike Richter retired on Johnston's recommendation after suffering for months from postconcussion syndrome. In December, New Jersey Devils defenseman Scott Stevens went to Montreal for an exam after being plagued by mysterious flu-like symptoms for weeks. Johnston told him he was suffering from post-concussion syndrome, and Stevens hasn't played since early January. The CFL's Montreal Alouettes gave her a championship ring when they won the 2002 Grey Cup.

Johnston is revered as much for her independence (she's not affiliated with any league or team) as she is for her expertise. After getting a Ph.D. in neuroscience in 1987 and a medical degree four years later from the University of Toronto, Johnston worked as a brain surgeon and was director of neurotrauma at McGill University Health Centre.

Her interest in concussions was at first purely research based, but by the late '90s she was treating injured McGill athletes and helping groups such as the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine and the International Olympic Committee draw up concussion safety guidelines.

In 2000 Johnston wrote the McGill Concussion Protocol, the first comprehensive program for diagnosine, treating and re-habilitating concussion victims. Until then, loss of consciousness had traditionally been the benchmark for judging the severity of a concussion.

Johnston's protocol is based on research indicating that symptoms after the fact-headaches, nausea, dizziness and cognitive troubles that mark postconcussion syndrome-are better indicators of how badly the brain has been affected.

"Concussion is a functional injury rather than a structural one," Johnston says. "If athletes aren't knocked out, they might not even realize the symptoms they're having are related to a concussion."

Johnston's rehab regimen is based on the idea that, as she says, "you have to create an environment for the brain to heal itself." That means an ultra-cautious approach: Athletes are forbidden from strenuous physical activity-no skating, weightlifting or even stationary bike riding-until they've been free of symptoms for an extended period.

"Most athletes try to push through brain pain like it's an orthopedic injury" she says. "That usually just makes things worse."

http://www.athletics.mcgill.ca/sportsmed_interest_details.ch2?article_id=355

Moore would seem toi be folowing the proper rehabilitation regime for his injury.

In Canada as of 1978 there was a limit of $100,000 imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the "Trilogy Cases". In today's dollars that limit sits at about $300,000. Colorado also has limits on pain and suffering damages.

 

[Rayne*]

Moore shouldn't have elbowed Naslund if he didn't want Bertuzzi to come after him. An eye for an eye. His career may be over, but oh well, the NHL won't miss him. Moore can cry all he wants, he'll only get a fraction of what he wants.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Moore shouldn't have elbowed Naslund if he didn't want Bertuzzi to come after him. An eye for an eye. His career may be over, but oh well, the NHL won't miss him. Moore can cry all he wants, he'll only get a fraction of what he wants.

First off you can legally hit a player with an elbow just as long as it is not extended. Many of Scott Stevens hits did involve an elbow but he kept it tucked in as Moore did.

Rule 53 Elbowing

Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury.

A minor or major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee, shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to foul an opponent.
When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed and an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100).

http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule53.html

Secondly the hit appeared to be from Moore's shoulder or upper forearm. The game officials did not call a penalty and the NHL after review of the game tapes did not consider the hit worthy of supplementary discipline which by the way can even be imposed for legal hits which are excessively violent under the NHL policy.

EXHIBIT 8
Procedures Relating To Commissioner Discipline

Factors In Determining Supplementary Discipline

In deciding on supplementary discipline, the following factors will be taken into account:

1. The type of conduct involved: conduct outside of NHL rules; excessive force in contact otherwise permitted by NHL rules; and careless or accidental conduct. Players are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

2. Injury to the opposing player(s) involved in the incident.

3. The status of the offender, and specifically whether he is a first time or repeat offender. Players who repeatedly violate NHL rules will be more severely punished for each violation.

4. The situation of the game in which the incident occurred: late in the game, lopsided score, prior events in the game.

5. Such other factors as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

The linchpin of the disciplinary system is Rule 34A:

Rule 34A. Supplementary Discipline
In addition to the automatic fines and suspensions imposed under these rules, the Commissioner may, at his discretion, investigate any incident that occurs in connection with any exhibition, League or playoff game and may assess additional fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player, Trainer, Manager, Coach or club executive, whether or not such offense has been penalized by the Referee.

(NOTE):If an investigation is requested by a club or by the League on its own initiative, it must be initiated within seventy-two (72) hours following the completion of the game in which the incident occurred.

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/archive/cba/exhibit8.html

Rob Becker who is a Toronto sports law lawyer and the legal expert for Roger's SportsNet believes the action is well-founded and that liability against Bertuzzi for the assault is a foregone conclusion because of Bertuzzi's admission of guilt and conviction for assault causing bodily harm. He also was of the opinion that the multi-million claim for loss of income was within reasonable boundaries. I agree. YMMV.

 

[Dolemite]

Secondly the hit appeared to be from Moore's shoulder or upper forearm. The game officials did not call a penalty and the NHL after review of the game tapes did not consider the hit worthy of supplementary discipline which by the way can even be imposed for legal hits which are excessively violent under the NHL policy.

http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/cba/archive/cba/exhibit8.html

Yet the next time the Canucks and Avs met in Denver both Gary Bettman AND Colin Campbell were in attendence. It is possible that this was a case of a 'no call' by the NHL that should have been called.

 

[Dolemite]

Also, If someone who knows can advise about pain and suffering. I heard that there is a limit of $250,000.00 for the worst case.

I beleive that figure is correct in BC, which makes me wonder why Moore's ambulance chasers haven't filed in BC as of yet. I could be wrong.

 

[Dolemite]

I disagree - in Canada contingecy fees have been very useful and according to our courts are socially useful.

In Canada there are disincentives against bringing frivolous actions. Unlike what I understand is the case in many US jurisdictions where each party bears its own costs, the losing party is assessed legal costs to be paid to the successful party. The actual legal costs of a Defendant can be awarded against a Plaintiff and on ocassion a Plaintiff's lawyer where a court determines the action should not have been brought in the first place. The Law Societies monitor these contignecy fees pretty closely.

I'd like to review these 'disincentives'. Links please.

 

[bling]

Yet the next time the Canucks and Avs met in Denver both Gary Bettman AND Colin Campbell were in attendence. It is possible that this was a case of a 'no call' by the NHL that should have been called.

I would guess that was because of Crow and our dear pal, Brad May. shooting their mouths off about the planned retribution. But Even CC and GB should have known the chicken **** Canucks would never do anything away from their home ice.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Yet the next time the Canucks and Avs met in Denver both Gary Bettman AND Colin Campbell were in attendence. It is possible that this was a case of a 'no call' by the NHL that should have been called.

How does that follow?

They were there according to the subsequent decision to fine the Canucks, to try to ensure that the Canucks toned down the rhetoric and did not follow through on the threats that had been made.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I beleive that figure is correct in BC, which makes me wonder why Moore's ambulance chasers haven't filed in BC as of yet. I could be wrong.

The cap on pain and suffering applies across Canada in all provinces. As of 1978 there was a limit of $100,000 imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the "Trilogy Cases". In today's dollars that limit sits at about $300,000.

The cases, Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.; Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., and Teno et al. v. Arnold et al. established a ceiling on non-pecuniary damage awards in personal injury actions. (aka general damages and do not include compensation for expenses, health care, lost income and other losses that can be measured or quantified by some means.). As the court noted:

The real difficulty is that an award of non-pecuniary damages cannot be ‘compensation’. There is simply no equation between paralyzed limbs and/or injured brain and dollars. The award is not reparative: there can be no restoration of the lost function.

The SCC decided that Canada would not go down the road of the US experience of massive non-pecuniary damage awards.

 

[Dolemite]

How does that follow?

They were there according to the subsequent decision to fine the Canucks, to try to ensure that the Canucks toned down the rhetoric and did not follow through on the threats that had been made.

Ummm check your facts again. You forget that the two teams met in Denver, with Bettman and Campbell in attendence, between the time Naslund got nailed by Moore and before Moore got nailed in Vancouver.

 

[Ensane]

Ummm check your facts again. You forget that the two teams met in Denver, with Bettman and Campbell in attendence, between the time Naslund got nailed by Moore and before Moore got nailed in Vancouver.

So the point you're trying to make is that because the Canucks, their fans, and their media was up in arms about the hit, that it was dirty?

The NHL brass was onhand at the game in Denver because regardless of the lack of disciplinary action, Canucks players were carelessly running their mouth off about getting Moore.