TSN: Wideman suspension reduced to 10 games by neutral arbitrator

[Fig]

Next time just do this

 

[Volica]

Wideman, the gift that keeps giving.

 

[WeegarUnderwood]

this is how i feel when i ask, who likes hawaiian pizza.

 

[The Head Crusher]

I don't really understand how Henderson has a chance at a civil suit on a play that has already been deemed to be unintentional. To what extent are players liable for accidental actions within a hockey game that lead to injury? If a player shoots the puck and hits a ref in the head, is he liable?

Intent only goes so far. If we were driving separate cars and unintentionally hit your car occurs that results in you being paralyzed below the waist I am just as liable in a civil suit as if I tried to ram your car.

Or we can look at this in a hockey sence i slip and my stick comes up and hit you in the face (ala Gagner/kassian) I am still responsible for my actions even if it was unintentional

 

[Dertell]

I don't really understand how Henderson has a chance at a civil suit on a play that has already been deemed to be unintentional. To what extent are players liable for accidental actions within a hockey game that lead to injury? If a player shoots the puck and hits a ref in the head, is he liable?

Unintentional acts can be crimes if there was recklessness/negligence. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence.

 

[The Head Crusher]

Unintentional acts can be crimes if there was recklessness/negligence. As the tweet shows, the lawsuit is about the latter. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence

Though this is a civil suit not a criminal suit, though Henderson's can still claim negligence on Wideman's part to justify the suit.

 

[Anglesmith]

Unintentional acts can be crimes if there was recklessness/negligence. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence.

I would have to assume that in a hockey game with so many moving parts, it doesn't work that same as more structured environments such as driving a car. But that does make a certain sense, I guess.

 

[SKRusty]

I would have to assume that in a hockey game with so many moving parts, it doesn't work that same as more structured environments such as driving a car. But that does make a certain sense, I guess.

Wideman's contract is finally done. That said this will play out with the many lawyers, insurance companies and maybe a court room. To spend any more time focusing on a player that as of the 30th of June is longer a member of the Flames is a waste of a fan's time.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Intent only goes so far. If we were driving separate cars and unintentionally hit your car occurs that results in you being paralyzed below the waist I am just as liable in a civil suit as if I tried to ram your car.

Or we can look at this in a hockey sence i slip and my stick comes up and hit you in the face (ala Gagner/kassian) I am still responsible for my actions even if it was unintentional

The car incident is not an apt comparison - in any collision, someone is deemed to be at fault.

The in-game comparison is intriguing, and I really feel like the outcome of this lawsuit will set precedents all over the sporting world. Imagine that someone was partially blinded for that high stick. Even if it wasn't intentional are players going to start suing each other after the fact?

 

[Anglesmith]

Wideman's contract is finally done. That said this will play out with the many lawyers, insurance companies and maybe a court room. To spend any more time focusing on a player that as of the 30th of June is longer a member of the Flames is a waste of a fan's time.

Oh, shoot, you're right. Thought I was able to care about things and people independently of their contract situation.

 

[Shawnofthedeadz]

At least, he waited until we were eliminated to file suit.

Unintentional acts can be crimes if there was recklessness/negligence. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence.

That's not criminal negligence. Recklessness is not grounds for a crime. Its recklessness with both culpability and intention to cause harm or loss. It also has to be proven without a reasonable doubt. With both the concussion defense and lack of intention to injure there is no way criminal charges would pass. It's partly why the crown has not proceeded with filing these charges (note a criminal offense legally is considered an injury to the state and not the injured party - People who commit crimes that cause harm often face two separate trials).

Negligence in this lawsuit is being argued that Wideman owed a duty of care that he did not provide, causing harm. Henderson will argue Wideman owed him a duty not to hit him and to be aware of the ref's position. Flames will likely argue the ref should have been aware of his surroundings, his position in the way of Wideman who was hit hard, feeling out of it and concussed, and is more responsible for his own injury than Wideman is. The results will be interesting.

I also wonder if the Flames will just settle because this could be a PR and Ref biasing nightmare. It might be better to settle big, throw Wideman hard under the bus and beg the refs around the league for forgiveness.

 

[Dertell]

My bad. I meant civil negligence. Completely different.

I would have to assume that in a hockey game with so many moving parts, it doesn't work that same as more structured environments such as driving a car. But that does make a certain sense, I guess.

Civil negligence laws, as I understand them, doesn't recognize those nuances.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Oh, shoot, you're right. Thought I was able to care about things and people independently of their contract situation.

 

[Rangediddy]

At least, he waited until we were eliminated to file suit.

He didn't though, it was filed on Tuesday, the day before our elimination game!

 

[Saltcreek]

At least, he waited until we were eliminated to file suit.



That's not criminal negligence. Recklessness is not grounds for a crime. Its recklessness with both culpability and intention to cause harm or loss. It also has to be proven without a reasonable doubt. With both the concussion defense and lack of intention to injure there is no way criminal charges would pass. It's partly why the crown has not proceeded with filing these charges (note a criminal offense legally is considered an injury to the state and not the injured party - People who commit crimes that cause harm often face two separate trials).

Negligence in this lawsuit is being argued that Wideman owed a duty of care that he did not provide, causing harm. Henderson will argue Wideman owed him a duty not to hit him and to be aware of the ref's position. Flames will likely argue the ref should have been aware of his surroundings, his position in the way of Wideman who was hit hard, feeling out of it and concussed, and is more responsible for his own injury than Wideman is. The results will be interesting.

I also wonder if the Flames will just settle because this could be a PR and Ref biasing nightmare. It might be better to settle big, throw Wideman hard under the bus and beg the refs around the league for forgiveness.

I can see the Flames settling but I think Wideman has a much bigger problem. I personally believe that Henderson will not get 10+ million but he will get a hefty payout. Civil cases are completely different from criminal ones and you can use OJ Simpson as an example. He was found not guilty in the criminal case but he lost the civil case which bankrupted him.

 

[Kahvi]

I can't remember this, but did Henderson finish the game? Because that could be argued to have affected the injuries

(not my opinion, just something defense might use)

 

[The Head Crusher]

The car incident is not an apt comparison - in any collision, someone is deemed to be at fault.

The in-game comparison is intriguing, and I really feel like the outcome of this lawsuit will set precedents all over the sporting world. Imagine that someone was partially blinded for that high stick. Even if it wasn't intentional are players going to start suing each other after the fact?

I think one of the deciding factors will be the concept of "willing participants" when it comes to these issues. For hockey players many could be thrown out of court because all the players were willing participants and knew the risks associated for playing a contact sport (similar to skiers breaking their legs on a ski hill). In the refs case he was not a willing participant in the physical aspect of the sport as even in the rules of the game any contact with the ref could warrant suspensions or fines to the player/coach/ect that touches them. Either way it is going to be interesting to see how this turns out as a high school teacher who is currently covering negligence with their legal studies class.

 

[FlamerForLife]

I can't remember this, but did Henderson finish the game? Because that could be argued to have affected the injuries

(not my opinion, just something defense might use)

I don't think he did, I believe he had to be helped off the ice.

 

[Kahvi]

I don't think he did, I believe he had to be helped off the ice.

Ok, thanks. There was a short news story about this in Finnish media today, I briefly looked at the clip and it seemed he stayed on the ice.

edit: looked again, he dropped the puck for the next faceoff

 

[FlamerForLife]

Ok, thanks. There was a short news story about this in Finnish media today, I briefly looked at the clip and it seemed he stayed on the ice.

edit: looked again, he dropped the puck for the next faceoff

Yeah my bad lol, just read the globe and mail article and it says he finished the game.

 

[Fig]

For the tweet on the previous page, any guesses what (a) and (b) would be for injuries? Assuming no redundancy, I can't think of anything else he physically could be injured from looking at c to k. Technically, k hints there might be more injuries.

 

[Kahvi]

Another thing just came to my mind. Henderson is suing the Flames because they were Wideman's employer at the time (or at least that's the speculation).

During the season we had some discussion here about Bosman ruling ect. and I think Anglesmith said that the players are actually employed by the NHL and not teams directly, and thus trades etc. do not limit the free movement of labour or something.

 

[Anglesmith]

Another thing just came to my mind. Henderson is suing the Flames because they were Wideman's employer at the time (or at least that's the speculation).

During the season we had some discussion here about Bosman ruling ect. and I think Anglesmith said that the players are actually employed by the NHL and not teams directly, and thus trades etc. do not limit the free movement of labour or something.

I don't recall the conversation, and I'm definitely not an expert in that subject matter. However, maybe I did some research and that was what I found out.

It is something I'm a little curious about. Is the employer the team or the league?

 

[Kahvi]

I don't recall the conversation, and I'm definitely not an expert in that subject matter. However, maybe I did some research and that was what I found out.

It is something I'm a little curious about. Is the employer the team or the league?

I can't remember what was the topic when it was discussed, or which thread it could have been, but I'm pretty sure there was something like that

edit: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=121585265&postcount=506