Give it up Moore!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,116
Washington DC
Wetcoaster said:
Pretty much the same in Canada.

By pleading guilty Berttuzzi has admitted to the elements of the tort of battery. Assault causing bodily is the criminal equivalent of the tort and since a criminal conviction is based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a civil wrong (tort) only requires proof on the balance of probabilities (i.e. greater than 50% that it occurred) liability for battery by Bertuzzi is pretty much a foregone conclusion.


Now factor in that it took place in a hockey game and explain to the masses how many cases in Canada went forward with cases such as this that took place during a hockey game.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Dolemite said:
Now factor in that it took place in a hockey game and explain to the masses how many cases in Canada went forward with cases such as this that took place during a hockey game.
?????????????????? What are you talking about?

Numerous civil cases have been proven by the fact of a criminal conviction for the equivalent civil wrong - in this case assualt causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code is equivalent to the civil tort of battery. It is a common happenstance.

The hockey game is immaterial since both he criminal and civil cases use the same standard of consent. In the case of criminal cases it requires that implied consent be nullified before a conviction can be registered. The Mc Sorley case explained this in some detail.
 

lemieux32*

Guest
lemieux32 said:
The exact post that you are afraid of:

03-08-2006, 09:39 AM · #284
lemieux32
The Grate One

lemieux32's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 421


kingpest19, dead on Bertuzzi and his buddies made this threats and announcements ahead of time. These examples are people speaking after they went after someone. Realize you are dealing with people who tried to hold a rally to show their support for Bertuzzi after that cowardly act.



Keep hiding

Bump for kickassguy, since I know for a fact he is not ignoring me.
 

KrisKing*

Guest
lemieux32 said:
Bump for kickassguy, since I know for a fact he is not ignoring me.

You are by far the most intelligent poster on here.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to you anymore, but it's pretty obvious you needed to hear that.
 

lemieux32*

Guest
KrisKing said:
You are by far the most intelligent poster on here.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to you anymore, but it's pretty obvious you needed to hear that.

You may dislike my style or what I have to say, but at least I don't claim someone specificaly quoted something and then run away when it's proven the person did not, like kickassguy. Of course I could be like you, the little sidekick who shoots his mouth off, talking big but saying nothing, except when riding someone's coat tails. Still waiting for you to quit cowering and look at the photo sequence. Won't happen because you, like your buddy, will talk big and then run away when called out, claim you are ignoring and then run in to take a shot...and run away again. Now run along.
 

HughJass*

Guest
21pro said:
thread should read "give it up for Moore"

hey, if you've been the victim of a wrongdoing, all the power to you to try and seek justice.

Bingo. Technically, it's none of our business what Moore is doing. Bertuzzi basically tried to kill him. Everyone else should let this go. It's none of our business....this is real life. If I wanted to chat about real life with most of you guys on this board I would go into the Political Discussion crap that I won't go into anymore. :sarcasm:

Alot of you people need to get a life.
 

Psycho Papa Joe

Porkchop Hoser
Feb 27, 2002
23,347
17
Cesspool, Ontario
Visit site
Wetcoaster said:
Moore does not need to "sue them all".

Since Bertuzzi by his unlawful action set in motion a chain of events that resulted in Moore's injuries, Bertuzzi is responsible for ALL the injuries Moore suffered. The "dogpile" defence is a red herring.

Judge Weitzel in sentencing Bertuzzi was crystal clear on this point and the same applies in civil matters.

Judge Weitzel was also clear that Bertuzzi's actions were clearly outisde the "rules of conduct" and he dealt with that issue specifically in convicting Bertuzzi.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/04/p04_0472.htm

Pretty clear how the law treats this.

Aren't the Nucks and their management vicariously libel for the actions of their employee, hence why they can be legally be named in the case?
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
lemieux32 said:
You may dislike my style or what I have to say, but at least I don't claim someone specificaly quoted something and then run away when it's proven the person did not, like kickassguy. Of course I could be like you, the little sidekick who shoots his mouth off, talking big but saying nothing, except when riding someone's coat tails. Still waiting for you to quit cowering and look at the photo sequence. Won't happen because you, like your buddy, will talk big and then run away when called out, claim you are ignoring and then run in to take a shot...and run away again. Now run along.
Can you tell me where you posted the photo sequence? i would like to see it.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Psycho Papa Joe said:
Aren't the Nucks and their management vicariously libel for the actions of their employee, hence why they can be legally be named in the case?
Possibly.

The traditional common law test in Canada for applying vicarious liability to employers has two branches. Under this test, employers are vicariously liable for

1. employee acts authorized by the employer, and

2. for unauthorized acts so connected with authorized acts that they may be regarded as modes (albeit improper modes) of doing an authorized act.

I would imagine Moore would rely on both branches. Under the first that would fit in with his allegation of a civil conspiracy. If he proves a civil conspiracy involving Orca Bay/ Canucks then the employer would have authorized the act.

Negligent acts by employees usually result in a finding of vicarious liability. A more sticky point is when an employee commits an intentional wrongful act; civilly - "battery" and at criminal law "assault causing bodily harm" in this case. The employer may argue that Bertuzzi's actions were so far outside the "code" that they should not be liable since they clearly would not have authorized such an act.

If I had to place a bet on a court finding, I would go with vicarious liability but it is a close thing. Recently the courts have been more likely to find vicarious liability for criminal acts on the part of employees although many of those cases involve sexual abuse, particularly of a minor.

Even if the threats and assualts do not rise to the level of a civil conspiracy then Moore would likely argue that Bertuzzi's actions were so connected with authorized acts (the "pay back for hitting" a star theory so popular here) that the improper mode (the battery) amounted to the employer authorizing the act.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Possibly.

The traditional common law test in Canada for applying vicarious liability to employers has two branches. Under this test, employers are vicariously liable for

1. employee acts authorized by the employer, and

2. for unauthorized acts so connected with authorized acts that they may be regarded as modes (albeit improper modes) of doing an authorized act.

I would imagine Moore would rely on both branches. Under the first that would fit in with his allegation of a civil conspiracy. If he proves a civil conspiracy involving Orca Bay/ Canucks then the employer would have authorized the act.

Negligent acts by employees usually result in a finding of vicarious liability. A more sticky point is when an employee commits an intentional wrongful act; civilly - "battery" and at criminal law "assault causing bodily harm" in this case. The employer may argue that Bertuzzi's actions were so far outside the "code" that they should not be liable since they clearly would not have authorized such an act.

If I had to place a bet on a court finding, I would go with vicarious liability but it is a close thing. Recently the courts have been more likely to find vicarious liability for criminal acts on the part of employees although many of those cases involve sexual abuse, particularly of a minor.

Even if the threats and assualts do not rise to the level of a civil conspiracy then Moore would likely argue that Bertuzzi's actions were so connected with authorized acts (the "pay back for hitting" a star theory so popular here) that the improper mode (the battery) amounted to the employer authorizing the act.
All good points. One way to think about it is that arguably Bertuzzi's actions occurred in the context of the game (albeit too far). If, however, for example Bertuzzi had pulled a switchblade concealed in his glove and cut Moore's throat, the employer would have a much better defence of non-authorization. That is the extreme example, mind you. There are much greyer areas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->