Moore v Bertuzzi

[arnie]

Welcome to the life of an enforcer.

Live with it.

He doesnt have the talent to be top players, so he suits up as an enforcer.

Bad things happen when 2 250 pounders fight each other.

Live with it.


That is the career he chose.

This is like saying, I want to join boxing, but I dont want to get hurt to not box ever again?

See the paradox here?

The only paradox is in your thin,kking that you maske sense. Moore is not an enforcer, he doesn't weigh 250 and it wasn't a fight. It was a mugging. I suppose that if Bertuzzi had pulled a gun and shot him, that would have been OK too.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

The only paradox is in your thin,kking that you maske sense. Moore is not an enforcer, he doesn't weigh 250 and it wasn't a fight. It was a mugging. I suppose that if Bertuzzi had pulled a gun and shot him, that would have been OK too.

Scroll down the page and read before you click quote.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

meant was not wasnt

The only paradox is in your thinking that you maske sense. Moore is not an enforcer, he doesn't weigh 250 and it wasn't a fight. It was a mugging. I suppose that if Bertuzzi had pulled a gun and shot him, that would have been OK too.

true it wasnt a mugging, and I don't in anyway condone what Bertuzzi did, but at the same time Moore isnt a completely innocent when it comes to stuff like this.
Did you see the extremely cheap shot he gave to Marty St louis a few weeks before the hit to Naslund? You can bet your bottom dollar there has been a few more. He was a fringe player at best who was trying to make a name for himself, that doesnt mean he deserved to lose what career he could have had, but it is fact.

and im not so sure about the whole "opened and closed case" that some are taking on this.
I think we will have to wait and see, you know that the defense is going to go up down the roaster and Av's management stories, and that will have something to do with the outcome I'm sure.

Regardless, we will have to wait and see. Certainly not a good thing for anyone

 

[davemess]

and im not so sure about the whole "opened and closed case" that some are taking on this.

Moores side will do the following

1) Provide details of the Canucks players "head-hunting" comments
2) Show the Video of the Attack
3) Detail the NHLs response (the large suspension to prove it isnt just "part of the game")

Case won....... doesnt matter what the otherside attempt to argue at that point. They can provide reasons why he might have done it but none of them will be valid or helpful. If they say it was revenge for the hit on Naslund that just further proves intent and pre-planning. If they say he hit him from behind because he skated away and wouldnt fight they are admiting it was an unprovoked attack.

This should never reach court.

 

[Filiatron]

And Moore's hit on Naslund wasn't cowardly?Intent to injure a star player in my eyes.Which I hope they show in court!

Don't forget to show Moore's dirty check from behind on Martin St. Louis.

 

[orcatown]

Sets a horrible precedent for hockey and sports in general. If successful then we see all kinds of litigation especially as lesser players go after the athletes with mony.

In hockey any elbow to the head, and stick to the head, any punch to another player will now be grounds for litigation. Certainly any number of past inicidents including outraged Granato's Stick to the head, etcc.. could be revived if there is not a statue of limitations.

In baseball a bean ball, deemed deliberate by the ump, will be actionable. So could flagerant fouls in basketball and soceer.

Once you open this door the lawyers will cme barging through.

 

[X8oD]

Sets a horrible precedent for hockey and sports in general. If successful then we see all kinds of litigation especially as lesser players go after the athletes with mony.

In hockey any elbow to the head, and stick to the head, any punch to another player will now be grounds for litigation. Certainly any number of past inicidents including outraged Granato's Stick to the head, etcc.. could be revived if there is not a statue of limitations.

In baseball a bean ball, deemed deliberate by the ump, will be actionable. So could flagerant fouls in basketball and soceer.

Once you open this door the lawyers will cme barging through.

If somebody in the press says "we are gonna get you" and they go through with it, and end their career, then hey more power to the people who sue.

Of course, everything else you mentioned isnt even remotely close to comparable to what Bertuzzi did to Moore. But obviously you werent aiming to make sense, just be dramatic.

 

[Mess]

Sets a horrible precedent for hockey and sports in general. If successful then we see all kinds of litigation especially as lesser players go after the athletes with mony.

In hockey any elbow to the head, and stick to the head, any punch to another player will now be grounds for litigation. Certainly any number of past inicidents including outraged Granato's Stick to the head, etcc.. could be revived if there is not a statue of limitations.

In baseball a bean ball, deemed deliberate by the ump, will be actionable. So could flagerant fouls in basketball and soceer.

Once you open this door the lawyers will cme barging through.

I am sure if Bertuzzi would give Moore $ 8 mil this thing never needs to see the light of day in a Civil Court ..

An engagement ring is suppose to cost yuo 3 months Salary .. I guess the end of a Hockey carrer for 6-7 months of Bertuzzi pay is about right ..

 

[ResidentAlien*]

Moores side will do the following

1) Provide details of the Canucks players "head-hunting" comments
2) Show the Video of the Attack
3) Detail the NHLs response (the large suspension to prove it isnt just "part of the game")

Case won....... doesnt matter what the otherside attempt to argue at that point. They can provide reasons why he might have done it but none of them will be valid or helpful. If they say it was revenge for the hit on Naslund that just further proves intent and pre-planning. If they say he hit him from behind because he skated away and wouldnt fight they are admiting it was an unprovoked attack.

This should never reach court.

i think there is alot more than that to list on both sides, but whatever I dont you or know what wil happen for sure, at least i know I don't.

Bottom line is, they ONLY people that will get *rich* from this will be the lawyers

 

[LazRNN]

Why dont you put this case in comparison with the cases that were handed out previously in 1975 and 1977, (link posted) and then come back.

This is all you can attack on my points? About my misunderstanding that Moore was not an enforcer, but rather, he was a productive 3rd liner??

69 games 3 seasons with 12 points. Quite productive, huh?

I didn't say he was "productive", I said he wasn't an enforcer, after you erroneously said he was . That little fact blew up the entire post I responded to... if Moore’s not an enforcer your post has no point. I don't give a crap what happened in the 70's, I saw what happened to Steve Moore and that's all I need to know. You see, I'm a human being and I can see, so I don't need to look up cases from the past to obfuscate an assault when I see one, unlike his pathetic little defenders. Bertuzzi is a rat and a criminal... and anyone who defends him is at least the former. Now, I think I’ve spent enough time today dealing with rodents…

 

[kmad]

I don't give a crap what happened in the 70's, I saw what happened to Steve Moore and that's all I need to know.

Any student of law knows that precedent is the most important part of any case. Not giving a crap about precedent in a situation like this is showing flashes of pure ignorance.

Play that ethos card in a high school religion debate but not here.

 

[LazRNN]

Any student of law knows that precedent is the most important part of any case. Not giving a crap about precedent in a situation like this is showing flashes of pure ignorance.

Play that ethos card in a high school religion debate but not here.

Okay, so if I see someone come up to another individual from behind and start beating the crap out of him, I am ignorant if I don't start researching law precedents to determine if I actually saw an unjustified assault??? Sorry, skippy, no cigar on that logic. I'm no student of law nor do I have any reason to be. And here's the fact: I still know when I see an assault. If students of law need to be that particular about defining an unjustified assault, that must be why they are always compared to sharks.

 

[kmad]

Are you playing stupid or what?

Every time Bob Probert beat a guy in a fight, do you agree that he should have been charged with assault and sued for damages? Your argument is ludicrous. Obviously the whole premise of assault takes on a new set of bearings in the on-ice context.

The whole point of this case is for Moore to acquire the wages that he would have earned had he not been KO'd by Bertuzzi, effectively ending his career. We have to call upon precedent from similar cases to decide the outcome.

You can blab on about how unethical lawyers are, or how we should all live in peace under a rainbow, but it won't change anything - you have to ground yourself and realize how things actually work instead of getting mad at everything that doesn't line up to your peripheral vision.

 

[Luongownage]

On an objective note:

This suit isn't going to get far. The list of defedants are not as comprehensive as it should be, thus inviting the defense to suggest that this suit is nothing but an attempt at malice and vengence, rather than personal justice and a claim on personal damages. Secondly, it is filed in the wrong venue, this claim should have benn brought to a Canadian court, as the game was played in Vancouver. This gives the defense another good foot to stand on in the sense that Moore is seeking an enviroment with less/more bias towards his favor.

On a personal note:
I doubt the severity of Steve Moore's injuries and believe that he is simply on a retribution course against Bertuzzi, May and the Canucks. He knows he wasn't getting paid either way this year through the lockout situation, and is looking for other money.

FLAME ON!!!

 

[kdb209]

Okay, so if I see someone come up to another individual from behind and start beating the crap out of him, I am ignorant if I don't start researching law precedents to determine if I actually saw an unjustified assault??? Sorry, skippy, no cigar on that logic. I'm no student of law nor do I have any reason to be. And here's the fact: I still know when I see an assault. If students of law need to be that particular about defining an unjustified assault, that must be why they are always compared to sharks.

But this is not a criminal issue of assault - that has already been dealt with. Todd plead guilty.

This is now about money - a civil case. How do you convince a jury to award damages and how much? How strong is your case? How likely is it that the defendant will settle out of court? You bet your ass that precedent is damn important to all of the above.

Now a $3.5M settlement in 1975 dollars would be about $12.5M today (if you use the CPI). And that's not even taking into account that player salaries are MUCH higher today than in the 70s.

Todd, settle. You've already pleaded guilty in criminal court. It's pretty much impossible for you to argue that your actions did not cause damages.

Moore's hit on Naslund is a non-issue - other than to set up the conspiracy arguments against the Canucks. If he could show damages, he was perfectly able to sue Moore - he didn't.

If the hit had occured in the same game, you might be able to use it to mitigate responsibility - in the heat of the moment, etc., but not months later after all of the public statements.

If you hit me and I hit you back, I can argue provocation or self defense and do a good job of arguing against an assault charge.

If you hit me and then I wait a couple of months and then hit you back, sorry, that's assault, likely pre meditated, no matter the original cause.

 

[MrMastodonFarm*]

On the other side we have Canuck haters who just want to see Bertuzzi suffer because he scores lots of goals against their teams.
.

lol, what a cop out!

I suppose that is the reason I wanted to see Marty McSorely suffer.. because he scored alot of goals against my favourite team.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

On an objective note:

This suit isn't going to get far. The list of defedants are not as comprehensive as it should be, thus inviting the defense to suggest that this suit is nothing but an attempt at malice and vengence, rather than personal justice and a claim on personal damages. Secondly, it is filed in the wrong venue, this claim should have benn brought to a Canadian court, as the game was played in Vancouver. This gives the defense another good foot to stand on in the sense that Moore is seeking an enviroment with less/more bias towards his favor.

On a personal note:
I doubt the severity of Steve Moore's injuries and believe that he is simply on a retribution course against Bertuzzi, May and the Canucks. He knows he wasn't getting paid either way this year through the lockout situation, and is looking for other money.

FLAME ON!!!

If he would have filed in Canada he and his lawyers know the dollar amount would be peanuts.

 

[orcatown]

X8oD - of course it sets precedent. All you have to establish is intent. The extend of intend may vary the nature of the suit or the damages but does not change the ability to sue. If an umpire ejects a player for beaning another person he has established that he saw intent. The injured player has an actionable case. If ref establishes basketball player flaggerantly fouled another player, and injury results, then intent is established. You are confusing intent with premediation and legally speaking these are quite different things.

Why talk about things you so little understand. Right now the Moore case ,as many have commented, is opening a legal can of worms.

I know you in your outrage against Bertuzzi would like to the situation to be capsulized and seen as an action apart, in which Bertuzzi, can, for your sake, be singly punished, with no wider ramifications. But obviously this action has wider implications.

 

[ScottyBowman]

I'm not going to get legal on anyone since I know nothing about the court system. I will be up front and say that I hate Bertuzzi and I hate the Canucks BUT I hate players like Moore even more. I'm sick of people who throw cheap shots and when its time to drop the gloves, they hide behind a ref. If you want to be a headhunter, you have to be ready to fight. The league has been ruined by Moore, Avery, Darcy Tucker, etc...

 

[Hasbro]

the precident already exists. Polonich and Broucha both won damages for on ice violence.

 

[Steve L*]

In baseball a bean ball, deemed deliberate by the ump, will be actionable. So could flagerant fouls in basketball and soceer.

Cases have already been fought and won for footballers who receive career ending injuries from terrible tackles.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Sets a horrible precedent for hockey and sports in general. If successful then we see all kinds of litigation especially as lesser players go after the athletes with mony.

In hockey any elbow to the head, and stick to the head, any punch to another player will now be grounds for litigation. Certainly any number of past inicidents including outraged Granato's Stick to the head, etcc.. could be revived if there is not a statue of limitations.

In baseball a bean ball, deemed deliberate by the ump, will be actionable. So could flagerant fouls in basketball and soceer.

Once you open this door the lawyers will cme barging through.

NHL players have sued other players before for on ice actions.

Henry Boucha sued Dave Forbes.

Denis Polonich sued Wilf Paiement.

Wayne Babych sued Ken McRae.

The NHL survived.

 

[SB]

....Every time Bob Probert beat a guy in a fight, do you agree that he should have been charged with assault and sued for damages? Your argument is ludicrous. Obviously the whole premise of assault takes on a new set of bearings in the on-ice context.....

But Probert fighting does not equal Bertuzzi from behind. Yes, there's such thing as precedent, but the events have to be the same. This was not a fight.

 

[Wetcoaster]

On an objective note:

This suit isn't going to get far. The list of defedants are not as comprehensive as it should be, thus inviting the defense to suggest that this suit is nothing but an attempt at malice and vengence, rather than personal justice and a claim on personal damages. Secondly, it is filed in the wrong venue, this claim should have benn brought to a Canadian court, as the game was played in Vancouver. This gives the defense another good foot to stand on in the sense that Moore is seeking an enviroment with less/more bias towards his favor.

On a personal note:
I doubt the severity of Steve Moore's injuries and believe that he is simply on a retribution course against Bertuzzi, May and the Canucks. He knows he wasn't getting paid either way this year through the lockout situation, and is looking for other money.

FLAME ON!!!

It is up to plaintiff to decide who to sue - it has no relevence to the merits of case.

Moore is attempting to use what is refrred to in US law as a "long arm statute". If he can convince the Colorado court that there was a civil conspiracy which originated after his hit on Naslund then he MAY satisfy the test for sufficient connetion to go ahead.

If it was the reverse in Canada it would be very unlikely to proceed because we do not have the counterpart of a "long arm statute".

He will have to prove his injuries or the defendants will have to accept them as pleaded.

If the court determines that he would have not played this year in any event because of the lockout then that would not be lost future income and he would not be compensated for it.

 

[LazRNN]

Are you playing stupid or what?

Every time Bob Probert beat a guy in a fight, do you agree that he should have been charged with assault and sued for damages? Your argument is ludicrous. Obviously the whole premise of assault takes on a new set of bearings in the on-ice context.

The whole point of this case is for Moore to acquire the wages that he would have earned had he not been KO'd by Bertuzzi, effectively ending his career. We have to call upon precedent from similar cases to decide the outcome.

You can blab on about how unethical lawyers are, or how we should all live in peace under a rainbow, but it won't change anything - you have to ground yourself and realize how things actually work instead of getting mad at everything that doesn't line up to your peripheral vision.

Okay, let's get a couple of things straight: A hockey fight is not an assault. If a player challenges another to face off, and they fight... that is part of how the game is played. I get it. Now let's stop being condescending pricks to one another (yes, I'm guilty too, I admit... I got heated). I'm going to assume you have the intelligence and moral standards to understand that when Todd Bertuzzi came up to Steve Moore from behind and sucker punched him in the head, knocking him out, then he continued to pound away at him as he fell to the ice unconscious, that was not a hockey fight. So I must be misunderstanding your point about Probert. If Probert beat someone in a legitimate hockey fight, that's not assault. We both know why. If Probert attacked somebody from behind when he was in a defenseless position, and kept beating on him until he was so badly beaten that his hockey career was over, that's assault.

Now another thing to get straight: Your talking law, I'm talking morals. So maybe we aren't even disagreeing on anything. I don't care what the law says about what Bertuzzi did to Moore. I don't look to the law to tell me that Bertuzzi committed a heinous act against Moore. If he approaches him face to face, and says "lets go", and Moore agrees, and Bertuzzi beats the crap out of him and ends his career, that's one thing. But we both know that's not what happened. The law may determine that Bertuzzi doesn’t owe Moore any money for damages. If that is the case, the law has failed to do what’s right.