Give it up Moore!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wetcoaster

Guest
Ensane said:
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.
Ditto.
 

bling

Registered User
Jun 23, 2004
2,934
0
Dolemite said:
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.

Yeah, you already said that and I said it was because Marc Crawford and Brad May made threats to get retribution against Steve Moore and the logical thing in Bettman and Campbell's mind was that any sort of retribution would come in the next game the two teams played against one another. However the gutless pukes from Vancouver decided to wait and ambush Steve on home ice. Bettman and Campbell were too stupid to see the liklihood of this happening and thought it was all over and done withafter the uneventful game in Denver.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,115
Washington DC
Ensane said:
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.


Link please.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
Link please.
Your local library reference centre.

Check the Vancouver Sun and Province newspapers from February 17, 2004 to March 16, 2004 - sports sections.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,115
Washington DC
bling said:
Bettman and Campbell were too stupid to see the liklihood of this happening and thought it was all over and done withafter the uneventful game in Denver.


'Stupid' is probably not the correct word to use but I'm willing to bet that this was the case.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
"This is not the official version." (Upper Right Corner)


Let me rephrase. Links please that refer directly to the points you're making. I don't have the time to weed through all of this. Sum up.
Allow me to repeat what Ensane wrote:

Yeah, I'll get right on that. :sarcasm:

I made my points earlier, if you wish more I have given you the basic materials. Feel free to do your own research.
 

Dream Big

Registered User
Jun 10, 2005
5,337
35
Axis Mundi
Thanks wetcoaster. Your expert input is educational and appreciated.

I'm really suprised at how low the Canadian top end $100,000 in 1978 $s is for pain and suffering. I must be watching too much American news and tv programming. It seems discriminatory to be a Canadian.

Do you think this figure should be revisited. You wouldn't be able to buy a standard Vancouver city lot (33x122) for under $400,000. You might be able to buy a small condo for $300,000. including taxes.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,115
Washington DC
Wetcoaster said:
Allow me to repeat what Ensane wrote:

Yeah, I'll get right on that. :sarcasm:

I made my points earlier, if you wish more I have given you the basic materials. Feel free to do your own research.

Nope. I'm just proving a point to one of the mods. Thanks for not backing up your points.
 
Last edited:

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,407
16,372
South Rectangle
CoreVX said:
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.
So you'd be cool if the Avs put a bounty out on Bertuzzi and beat him half to death?

All the pro"code" neadrathals alway omit that Bertuzzi hasn't dropped gloves and answered the bell in seven games since. Hell he's not even suppposed to be booed.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
Nope. I'm just proving a point to one of the mods. Thanks for not backing up your points.
I back my points up all the time. However if you wish detailed legal analysis then you can do your own research - I provided you with the source material.

You seem to have no point that is apparent to me.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,115
Washington DC
Wetcoaster said:
I back my points up all the time. However if you wish detailed legal analysis then you can do your own research - I provided you with the source material.

You seem to have no point that is apparent to me.


The way you back up your points is practically giving someone the bible when (as an example) a line of scripture is all that needs to be provided.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
domefan said:
Thanks wetcoaster. Your expert input is educational and appreciated.

I'm really suprised at how low the Canadian top end $100,000 in 1978 $s is for pain and suffering. I must be watching too much American news and tv programming. It seems discriminatory to be a Canadian.

Do you think this figure should be revisited. You wouldn't be able to buy a standard Vancouver city lot (33x122) for under $400,000. You might be able to buy a small condo for $300,000. including taxes.
You have to realize that this is a cap on only one type of damages which are termed variously non-pecuniary damages, general damages or pain and suffering damages. The plaintif might still be able to receive millions of dollars in economic damages, including all of his proven medical expenses and lost wages as well as compensation for loss of future earning capacity. As I noted the cap is tied to inflation so today it has tripled in value from 1978 to $300,000.

Here is an explanation by former Chief Justice Brian Dickson who sat on the Trilogy cases for the rational for capping damages as well as the various types of damges that are awarded:
http://www.biblio.uottawa.ca/droit-law/dickson/bd-sp-disc/sp-05.html

In Ernst v. Merck, a Texas Vioxx products liability case, the jury issued a verdict of $24 million in non-economic damages for a widow who had been married one year to a 59-year-old produce manager with arterosclerosis. This sort of award strains the bounds of rationality, particularly where the basis for an action is negligence as opposed to an intentional tort - punishment damages which is really what such an award represents in those circumstances does not make a lot of sense.

One change that makes sense is to me is to not have a cap on general damages for intentional civil wrongs (i.e. torts such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, defamation, slander, libel, misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, common law fraud and tortious interference with contractual or business relationships.

OTOH I would favour a continued cap on non-intentional torts such as negligence.

A number of US states (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin) have imposed a similar cap to Canada's for general damages. In some cases the caps have been found by state courts to be unconstitutional as an interference with the right to a jury trial under state constitutions.

In one of President Bush's main legal intiatives he has proposed a nationwide $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases.

And many states have also put a cap on punitive damages as well as aggravated damages whereas in Canada we do not have such limits.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a $1 million punitive damage award against an insurance company in Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co. in 2002.

As I understand it Moore has included a claim for punitive and aggravated damages along with a claim for negligent supervision and civil conspiracy as well as his claim for damages for assault,battery, medical costs and loss of income (past income and loss of future earning capacity in the amount of about $15 million.)
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
The way you back up your points is practically giving someone the bible when (as an example) a line of scripture is all that needs to be provided.
I am a firm believer in self-education.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Wetcoaster said:
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.

Is that the same "foregone conclusion" as the immigration troubles into the US that you insisted Bertuzzi would have? :sarcasm:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=120330&page=4&pp=25

Alan Jackson said:
I get really tired of repeating this, but Moore's neck injury has NOTHING to do with not being able to resume his career. The neck, from what I have read, is fully healed - and there was never a question that it would fully heal.

Absolutely correct.
 

HughJass*

Guest
I'm a firm believer Steve Moore he can do what the hell he wants to do. I'm not the one who could have died that day, he was.

Meh, and Daniel Snyder can't do anything about his situation while his buddy runs around unabatted from this boards non-sensical banter.

:loony:
 

BJCOLLINS

Registered User
Jul 7, 2003
2,537
874
Pirate Satellite
First off I wish Moore good luck in the future.......I've seen lots of nasty stuff over the years in this game & have many scars and a bent nose to show for it....this in way is comparable to what happened to Moore but were do the rules of hockey cross over to "if a guy in your office........ blah blah blah" grow up!
Hockey is not for the FAINT OF HEART, there are risks. Every year here in Canada people are seriously injured playing the game they love, one player(a) gets his feet taken out by another player(b) racing for the puck is there intent........should player (a) be intitled to sue player (b)...............or look at Mclaren hit on Zednik, Domi hit on Scott Niedermayer,etc. etc..

This is IMHO a money grab. Bert was wrong to do what he did. It was unsportsman like, ugly and not in the spirit of tough Canadian hockey. THEREFORE. He has taken to NHL, suspended without pay, not allowed to participate in the playoffs, World Cup, and the following year. He then appeared before a judge in the very highly publicised case and pled guilty,and was issued his punishment. How much more (pardon the pun) do people want from him. As bad as some people may think Bert is I don't think anyone can say he ment to end Moore's career, no more than Domi or McLaren met to end the careers of the guys they took out.

People get upset when Moore's playing ability (4th liner or Ahl'er) is brought up, I think this has to be looked at when compensation is in question.

Again IMHO, Moore may have had 3-5 yrs. 4th line minimum NHL salary what's that 400k then 3-5 yrs. Ahl at 75k.
that total looks like 5,700.000 add 1 million for what he's indured during the past two years and WOW add NHL pension plus any insurance $ and he'll be OK.

The more people that crucify Bert for a crime he's already paid for the the more the scales of justice will support him.
 

Gumballhead

Registered User
Nov 18, 2002
5,148
2,312
Chicago
scotchhorns.bandcamp.com
BJCOLLINS said:
As bad as some people may think Bert is I don't think anyone can say he ment to end Moore's career, no more than Domi or McLaren met to end the careers of the guys they took out.

Take into account everything that happened. There are specific circumstances and happenings that made what happened much much worse than it needed to be. It wasn't a crime in the heat of battle or passion. You had a bunch of hotheads on the Canucks with a bloodlust because of Moore's hit on Naslund. They made public comments about revenge. Then Bertuzzi did what he did, practically at the end of a game, and not even during a hockey play, and I don't even think the clock was running. It's not like he boarded him with a dirty hit. Even as despicable and cheap as a play like that can be, this was much, much worse in intent.

Keep in mind that if the Avs players mindsets were like some of those in Vancouver, the multiplied vengeance factor for what Bertuzzi did would have had to have been something like killing him and setting fire to his corpse. There's no way Moore deserved what he got, and he got it in the most cowardly fashion you could imagine -- of course he's going to sue anyone and everyone to get what he can. The fact that there was talk of a bounty and things like that just help Moore's case.

BJCOLLINS said:
People get upset when Moore's playing ability (4th liner or Ahl'er) is brought up, I think this has to be looked at when compensation is in question.

Again IMHO, Moore may have had 3-5 yrs. 4th line minimum NHL salary what's that 400k then 3-5 yrs. Ahl at 75k.
that total looks like 5,700.000 add 1 million for what he's indured during the past two years and WOW add NHL pension plus any insurance $ and he'll be OK.

People get upset when his playing ability is brought up because many people on these boards talk about how he was nothing but a scrub, or even more hilariously, some sort of cheapshot artist who was only in the NHL because of his skill in taking people out. The reality is we don't know what his career might have been like, but those of us who got to see him play that season could see that he was a smart player who made good decisions, and had a little bit of offense to his game. I doubt he'd have ever been a 2nd liner, unless the NHL expanded again, but he surely seemed to be carving a niche as a 4th, or even a 3rd line player, who would more than likely be used to kill penalties as well. Most people who try to paint him as a scrub simply didn't watch him play, and were looking at his stats or total NHL games played. They'd even bring up his age, which was a little higher than some prospects because he stayed in college. It's already been said a hundred times that the amount he's suing for is intentionally high so that if he gets less, it'll still be worthwhile. The combination of people undervaluing his career potential and taking the lawsuit amounts too literally has caused a lot of extra dialogue on here.

BJCOLLINS said:
The more people that crucify Bert for a crime he's already paid for the the more the scales of justice will support him.

No one is crucifying Bert, sheesh. This is about Moore and what he can get.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
BJCOLLINS said:
First off I wish Moore good luck in the future.......I've seen lots of nasty stuff over the years in this game & have many scars and a bent nose to show for it....this in way is comparable to what happened to Moore but were do the rules of hockey cross over to "if a guy in your office........ blah blah blah" grow up!
Hockey is not for the FAINT OF HEART, there are risks. Every year here in Canada people are seriously injured playing the game they love, one player(a) gets his feet taken out by another player(b) racing for the puck is there intent........should player (a) be intitled to sue player (b)...............or look at Mclaren hit on Zednik, Domi hit on Scott Niedermayer,etc. etc..

This is IMHO a money grab. Bert was wrong to do what he did. It was unsportsman like, ugly and not in the spirit of tough Canadian hockey. THEREFORE. He has taken to NHL, suspended without pay, not allowed to participate in the playoffs, World Cup, and the following year. He then appeared before a judge in the very highly publicised case and pled guilty,and was issued his punishment. How much more (pardon the pun) do people want from him. As bad as some people may think Bert is I don't think anyone can say he ment to end Moore's career, no more than Domi or McLaren met to end the careers of the guys they took out.

People get upset when Moore's playing ability (4th liner or Ahl'er) is brought up, I think this has to be looked at when compensation is in question.

Again IMHO, Moore may have had 3-5 yrs. 4th line minimum NHL salary what's that 400k then 3-5 yrs. Ahl at 75k.
that total looks like 5,700.000 add 1 million for what he's indured during the past two years and WOW add NHL pension plus any insurance $ and he'll be OK.

The more people that crucify Bert for a crime he's already paid for the the more the scales of justice will support him.
Pro hockey has risks and players consent explicitly or impliedly to them but this was not the case here.

Judge Weitzel was clear on that point in sentencing Bertuzzi:
[36] There is a brief statement in one of the cases that has been referred to which really sets out the relationship of the courts to what goes on on the rink. It is an old decision. It is the case of R. v. Watson (1975), 26 C.C.C. (2d) 150. That was a case which involved an incident during a minor hockey game. There was a striking by one of them with a stick and then a fight and so on. The court there in considering the issue of provocation and all those sorts of things that come up whenever assault trials are heard, brings those principles down to the issue of a hockey game. I am quoting, about halfway through the case. The judge in that case states as follows:

Hockey is a fast, vigorous, competitive game involving much body contact. Were the kind of body contact that routinely occurs in a hockey game to occur outside the playing area or on the street, it would, in most cases, constitute an assault to which the sanctions of the criminal law would apply. Patently when one engages in a hockey game, one accepts that some assaults which would otherwise be criminal will occur and consents to such assaults. It is equally patent, however, that to engage in a game of hockey is not to enter a forum to which the criminal law does not extend. To hold otherwise would be to create the hockey arena a sanctuary for unbridled violence to which the law of Parliament and the Queen's justice could not apply. I know of no authority for such a proposition.

He goes on then to quote from the Maki case, which is one of the first cases involving an NHL hockey player, that:

No sports league, no matter how well organized or self-policed it may be, should thereby render the players in that league immune from criminal prosecution.

[37] So that is what is in play here.

[38] The confronting of Moore initially may have been within the bounds of the game. To then have the pursuit literally down the ice and then to grab by the sweater in order to get that player to engage in something which it is clear he did not wish to consent to, clearly went beyond the reasonable limits of the game and is an aggravating factor.

There are various disciplinary regimes that Bertuzzi has to face:

The NHL has acted. It has its own internal discipline but it cannot supplant the criminal (or civil) law. The courts are clear on this point. Judge Kitchen in the MCSorley case had this to say:
[11] A related issue includes the question of whether the criminal law process should be pre-empted where discipline procedures have been taken by the hockey authorities. Again, I must emphasize that this is not an issue related to a determination of whether Mr. McSorley has committed a crime.

[12] There are many groups that claim authority to discipline their members. Some are statutory, such as law societies and judicial councils, and some exist by virtue of private contractual arrangements such as in the case of the National Hockey League. Even where the disciplinary body is statutory, its status is often very controversial. There have been many cases before police discipline tribunals and medical licensing authorities where the public has been suspicious of the process, fearing that those involved are getting special treatment or that the truth is being concealed. In my view, there should be a heavy onus on those purporting to pre-empt the normal criminal process, particularly where it is a private organization such as a group of hockey owners. Statutory bodies must act in the public interest; businessmen have no such obligation.

[13] Comments by judges in two previous cases reflect this. In one of the first cases involving NHL players, R. v. Maki, (1970) 1 C.C.C. (2d) 333 at 336, the following comments were made by the trial judge:

Although no criminal charges have been laid in the past pertaining to athletic events in this country, I can see no reason why they could not be in the future where the circumstances warrant and the relevant authorities deem it advisable to do so. No sports league, no matter how well organized or self-policed it may be, should thereby render the players in the league immune from criminal prosecution.

And in R. v. Watson, (1975) 26 C.C.C. (2d) 150 at 156, the judge said:

Hockey is a fast, vigorous, competitive game involving much body contact. Were the kind of body contact that routinely occurs in a hockey game to occur outside the playing area or on the street, it would, in most cases, constitute an assault to which the sanctions of the criminal law would apply. Patently, when one engages in a hockey game, one accepts that some assaults, which would otherwise be criminal, will occur and consents to such assaults. It is equally patent, however, that to engage in a game of hockey is not to enter a forum to which the criminal law does not extend. To hold otherwise would be to create the hockey arena a sanctuary for unbridled violence to which the law of Parliament and the Queen's justice could not apply.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2000/01/p00_0116.htm

The criminal justice system has intervened. The point of that exercise is that it is the state that prosecutes and to a large extent the victim is a secondary consideration. The punishment visited upon Bertuzzi was by society in general in condemnation of his criminal offense.

The civil justice sytem is currently engaged. The whole point of the civil justice system is to get monetary compensation for a civil wrong done by another. I suppose from that point of view pretty much every civil case is a "money grab". However the whole point of damages is to make the Plaintiff whole or at least as much as is possible using money. That is the civil justice system. Whether or not Bertuzzi intended to end Moore's career is immaterial. He intended to commit the tort of battery (assault causing bodily harm in the crimimal regime) and is therefore responsble for all the damages that flowed from that unlawful act both criminally and at civil law. There is no "dog pile" defence available to Bertuzzi. He is wholly repsonsible for his actions, it matters not whether he intended the injuries be as severe as they were:
[13] When one sees the video, which has been played in this proceedings and been shown from a number of angles, it shows that Bertuzzi approached Mr. Moore, who did not have the puck. Bertuzzi seems to be talking at Moore, and Moore continues to skate, not hard, but glides away from Bertuzzi. They start out in the Canucks' end of the ice. They then move down to the other end, the Colorado end. Bertuzzi continued to say things to Moore, apparently attempting to get him into, or talk him into, or goad him into engaging in a consensual fight. The play then once again moved back towards the Canucks' end, and Moore turned and began to head in that direction, again appearing to ignore Bertuzzi. Bertuzzi reached out with his left hand and dropped his stick from his right hand and struck Moore very hard from behind and on the side, landing the blow, it looks like, in the right temple of Moore.

[14] Much has been made of whether or not Bertuzzi intentionally grabbed Moore's sweater for the purpose of pulling him back and, in essence, pulling him into the punch. From my observations of the video, I could not draw that conclusion. It seems to me that an equally consistent explanation is Bertuzzi grabbed the sweater of Moore to stop him.

[15] After the punch lands, Moore falls, with Bertuzzi falling on top of him. Very quickly thereafter members of both teams join on to what is really a dog pile. After the referees become involved and pull the others off, it is clear that Mr. Moore is lying in a prone position on his chest. There is blood on the ice, and he is in obvious severe discomfort and pain.

[16] With respect to whether or not the defendant intentionally rode Moore to the ice, that is not a conclusion that this court could draw, nor is it one which the Crown urges the court to draw.

[17] As is shown in the video, at the time Bertuzzi let go of the stick in his right hand, the stick fell to the ground. It appears that his left foot mounted that prone stick at the time he punched Moore. Bertuzzi's falling forward is equally consistent with him having lost his balance from having stepped on his own stick.

[18] Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the injuries to the head and to the neck, and indeed other injuries that may have occurred, are directly or indirectly related to the punch. Had he not made the punch, then they wouldn't have gone to the ice.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/04/p04_0472.htm

Moore's potential earnings will be a central issue in the determination of damages - principally his loss of future earning capacity. That will apply to not only his potential pro hockey earnings but also any impairment he may suffer in respect other alternative careers which could also be impacted by PCS.

BTW Moore has foregone his insurance by filing suit and he has not played sufficient games to vest his NHL pension IIRC.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
I'm a firm believer in people backing up their claims in their posts.
As I do far more often than is the norm on these boards.
 

MarMarSab3

formerly #13 & TML4EVR
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
4,613
2,135
Toronto
CoreVX said:
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.

Are you for freaking real, this post is pathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->