News Article: Cody Franson Lawsuit

[Duke Silver]

The bad news is that some people posting in here have some disproportionately strong opinions on this lawsuit considering they clearly don't understand how the law works or what it's for

The good news is that you're big enough ***holes that a career in law is still an option

 

[Ace88*]

His legal team thinks otherwise. I say legal team because his agent is probably heavily involved in this suit. Franson would be pretty stupid to ignore the advice of his legal advisors. Maybe he should just use all the free advice offered here by an increasing number of legal scholars.

Well obviously they think otherwise otherwise they wouldn't have filed the suit

I hope he loses the case simply because if he wins, it sets a potentially alarming precedent for future cases.

 

[Daisy Jane]

After reading the replies to this thread I have come to the conclusion that you are all immature and should be ashamed. Cody Franson is doing the exact same thing any of you would be doing if you were in his situation. The fact he plays in the NHL and makes a very respectable earning should have no bearing on his ability to exercise his legal rights. We have no idea how the accident impacted his physical/psychological health, nor do we have any idea how teams have used his lack of experience in the NHL against him during negotiations.

This board is populated by uneducated, blue collar, adult-children. I should have expected nothing less.

that is the most insulting thing i've read in a while. Holy smokes.

A: this wide-sweeping X is doing what EVERYONE would do is erroneous. You can't say that, because not everyone has been in that situation to argue that point, or if they were it doesn't mean that they would sue. I know people who have been in accidents that caused them to be disabled. They didn't sue because it was just a tragic accident, and my friend (who ended up being disabled) can never work again (mainstream anyway).

B: what some people have an issue with is that Someone - who regardless of what happened in 2009 (or whenever it was filed) has still managed to carve himself a niche in the league and has received more money and higher playing time in a marquee market. If the argument was "Due to the accident, I found that my foot speed and/or thinking has been diminished, and this is why my play suffers when i play longer" (or SOMETHING like that, I'm pretty sure that a few positions on this matter would change).

but it's "Because I didn't make the team in 2009, I spent time in the minors so I had less time to make more money, therefore that's impacted my chance to make more money every year." (this is how i'm interpreting it). ie: had it not been for the accident he'd be making more money - not necessarily playing better which wasn't brought up at all.

And it is very interesting how you very eloquently defended a hockey player and then decide to insult every single person who has an opinion that differs from you by calling them uneducated, blue collar adult-children, implying that they don't have the right to any opinion, or that everyone is uneducated (not true) or blue collar (how do you know)?


I'm not offering my opinion on this - because I don't know anything more than that was provided, but i always find it intriguing that people expect other people not to have an opinion on things like this, or if it's more akin to if someone who has a lot of money (regardless of what other 'life' aspects come into play) that people without a lot of money will have a negative reaction.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Well obviously they think otherwise otherwise they wouldn't have filed the suit

I hope he loses the case simply because if he wins, it sets a potentially alarming precedent for future cases.

This wouldn't set any precedent. This is well established already.

He probably can't make a definitive argument that he actually would have made more money, but he's wholey entitled to try.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Some of us actually are legal scholars.

In what way? I have no doubt their are some legal students on these boards, I question how many members of these boards/forums have enough education or expertise in the law to be considered any kind of renowned scholar. Just curious if you are suggesting you are a scholar because you are a legal student or if you are claiming to be some kind of well renowned (in your field) legal scholar.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

that is the most insulting thing i've read in a while. Holy smokes.

A: this wide-sweeping X is doing what EVERYONE would do is erroneous. You can't say that, because not everyone has been in that situation, to which follows my

B: what some people have an issue with is that Someone - who regardless of what happened in 2009 (or whenever it was filed) has still managed to carve himself a niche in the league and has received more money and higher playing time in a marquee market. If the argument was "Due to the accident, I found that my foot speed and/or thinking has been diminished, and this is why my play suffers when i play longer" (or SOMETHING like that, I'm pretty sure that a few positions on this matter would change).

but it's "Because I didn't make the team in 2009, I spent time in the minors so I had less time to make more money, therefore that's impacted my chance to make more money every year." (this is how i'm interpreting it). ie: had it not been for the accident he'd be making more money - not necessarily playing better which wasn't brought up at all.

And it is very interesting how you very eloquently defended a hockey player and then decide to insult every single person who has an opinion that differs from you by calling them uneducated, blue collar adult-children, implying that they don't have the right to any opinion, or that everyone is uneducated (not true) or blue collar (how do you know)?


I'm not offering my opinion on this - because I don't know anything more than that was provided, but i always find it intriguing that people expect other people not to have an opinion on things like this, or if it's more akin to if someone who has a lot of money (regardless of what other 'life' aspects come into play) that people without a lot of money will have a negative reaction.

1) Neither you or I have read the Statement of Claim. What we have is a low-level summary of the lawsuit from the Vancouver Province. While the general idea is that the accident impacted his negotiations, neither you or I have any idea what Franson is using to support that argument.

2) People are jumping to conclusions and for all they know he could be arguing that diminished physical or mental ability has impacted his contract negotiations. Yet even if this were to come out, Franson would still be a greedy millionaire for exercising his legal rights.

3. You have fallen into the same trap by claiming that the Province's summary is the jist of the suit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, however when it is baseless and irrelevant, then I am going to call them out.

 

[Ace88*]

Yeah, but that accident didnt impact your multimillion dollar contract negotiations, and insurance covered your expenses and lost earnings.

The amount of money he made or didn't make has no bearing on the validity of the suit. What Franson is claiming has very little legal merit and precedence so it's an uphill battle for him here.

The only way he can have a leg up in this case is if he filed it immediately after the accident. If he went and played the next season and didn't get the contract he wanted (which appears to be somewhat accurate) and THEN filed the suit (the 2 years is correct) then no judge is going to award him the money. The defendant would have all kinds of leverage against him going into the case and it would likely be shot down in court.

The thing that people don't know, and why they shouldn't comment if they don't know how this stuff works, is when he filed the suit. That's the important detail.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

In what way? I have no doubt their are some legal students on these boards, I question how many members of these boards/forums have enough education or expertise in the law to be considered any kind of renowned scholar. Just curious if you are suggesting you are a scholar because you are a legal student or if you are claiming to be some kind of well renowned (in your field) legal scholar.

I can not say who or what I am, but I can tell you that anyone who has gone through law school can tell you that every individual in Franson's situation would be exercising their legal rights for compensation above and beyond what insurance can provide.

 

[Daisy Jane]

1) Neither you or I have read the Statement of Claim. What we have is a low-level summary of the lawsuit from the Vancouver Province. While the general idea is that the accident impacted his negotiations, neither you or I have any idea what Franson is using to support that argument.

2) People are jumping to conclusions and for all they know he could be arguing that diminished physical or mental ability has impacted his contract negotiations. Yet even if this were to come out, Franson would still be a greedy millionaire for exercising his legal rights.

3. You have fallen into the same trap by claiming that the Province's summary is the jist of the suit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, however when it is baseless and irrelevant, then I am going to call them out.

that's how i'm interpreting people's reaction. I never read the article. I don't care. But i''m not going to lambaste people for having an opinion for how it's presented (and not taking the extra step to go "oh maybe this that and the other may come into play" because until (or even if) it comes out we won't know.

and again it is his legal right to do what he's doing, but what I pointed it out - not everyone would do it. (your claim).

and then i said just because their opinion differs from yours based on everything that was read (because if they don't know what's being argued - neither do you so it easily is not being brought up as easily as it would be brought up), does not make them and quote "uneducated blue collared adult-children."

that is insulting.

And again: I personally do not have an opinion here that i actually care to share - but i'm tired of people being wide-sweeping insulting because they have an opinion on things like this.

 

[HarrisonFord]

I bet he used Celino and Barnes lol

 

[rimshot]

Some of us actually are legal scholars.

Well then; perhaps you can educate the idiots that think the law is reserved only for them and the people they happen to like.

 

[Ace88*]

I bet he used Celino and Barnes lol

nah, he called sokolov

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

that's how i'm interpreting people's reaction. I never read the article. I don't care. But i''m not going to lambaste people for having an opinion for how it's presented (and not taking the extra step to go "oh maybe this that and the other may come into play" because until (or even if) it comes out we won't know.

and again it is his legal right to do what he's doing, but what I pointed it out - not everyone would do it. (your claim).

and then i said just because their opinion differs from yours based on everything that was read (because if they don't know what's being argued - neither do you so it easily is not being brought up as easily as it would be brought up), does not make them and quote "uneducated blue collared adult-children."

that is insulting.

And again: I personally do not have an opinion here that i actually care to share - but i'm tired of people being wide-sweeping insulting because they have an opinion on things like this.

People should be lambasted for having an opinion if it is uninformed and un-researched. The tendency in today's society to rely on gut reactions and attention grabbing headlines has made intelligent discourse online something that is rarely seen.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I am incorrect in my statements. Any individual here who suffered lost earning potential would be doing the exact same thing. I don't care frankly if you or others are insulted and I am sick of reading ignorant statements on this board. The posters here have a large tendency to favour the "little guy" and claim that people who are successful don't deserve to be treated fairly because of their wealth. Take a look at the numerous threads posted about "real fans", and "suits" who spend hockey games eating Sushi. The posts in this thread were along the same lines.

 

[rimshot]

Well obviously they think otherwise otherwise they wouldn't have filed the suit

I hope he loses the case simply because if he wins, it sets a potentially alarming precedent for future cases.

And you have a right to hope he loses. I personally do not care one way or another, my point is that to call Franson down for taking an injury claim to court is incredibly stupid. He is exercising his rights as a citizen as I would hope to do should I ever be injured in a car accident. How much money he makes, how good of a player he is has nothing to do with taking a case to court. Whether he has a case will be decided by the legal system and not by the opinions of HF bullboards posters.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

Well then; perhaps you can educate the idiots that think the law is reserved only for them and the people they happen to like.

Well it isn't difficult. If the accident occurred in 2008 as the article suggests, than Franson had 2 years from the date of the accident to file his claim. Thus he had to file it before the date of the accident in 2010. If he did not do so before that time, he would forever lose his right to claim against the defendant. Many individuals will file a Statement of Claim within the limitation period and never exercise their rights further, but want to make sure the option is available to them.

 

[Ace88*]

And you have a right to hope he loses. I personally do not care one way or another, my point is that to call Franson down for taking an injury claim to court is incredibly stupid. He is exercising his rights as a citizen as I would hope to do should I ever be injured in a car accident. How much money he makes, how good of a player he is has nothing to do with taking a case to court. Whether he has a case will be decided by the legal system and not by the opinions of HF bullboards posters.

Good, so we're in agreement then.

 

[Leaf Lander]

So a millionaire is suing most likely a person that isn't wealthy for probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if he wins the case he's basically assuring that this person will have money problems for the rest of his/her life. What the hell is wrong with this guy?

Exactly that's pathetic

The guy is making millions per year. Suck it up!

 

[Swervin81]

I bet he used Celino and Barnes lol

nah, he called sokolov

Or William Mattar.

 

[Kessley Snipes*]

that's how i'm interpreting people's reaction. I never read the article. I don't care. But i''m not going to lambaste people for having an opinion for how it's presented (and not taking the extra step to go "oh maybe this that and the other may come into play" because until (or even if) it comes out we won't know.

and again it is his legal right to do what he's doing, but what I pointed it out - not everyone would do it. (your claim).

and then i said just because their opinion differs from yours based on everything that was read (because if they don't know what's being argued - neither do you so it easily is not being brought up as easily as it would be brought up), does not make them and quote "uneducated blue collared adult-children."

that is insulting.

And again: I personally do not have an opinion here that i actually care to share - but i'm tired of people being wide-sweeping insulting because they have an opinion on things like this.

Exactly that's pathetic

The guy is making millions per year. Suck it up!

I love it when posters prove my point.

 

[rimshot]

Exactly that's pathetic

The guy is making millions per year. Suck it up!

And at what income level does one NOT "suck it up"? Anything less than a million?

 

[Joey Hoser]

And at what income level does one NOT "suck it up"? Anything less than a million?

Just above whatever he makes.

 

[rimshot]

Just above whatever he makes.

Stated for accuracy! Good one

 

[hatterson]

The article was from May and this thread has gone entirely off the rails.

Unless there's something new to report, we don't need to waste our time with this.