Wetcoaster
Guest
With Crawford now out as a named party this leaves Bertuzzi and the Canucks as defendants in the lawsuit. Too bad as the fireworks between Bertuzzi and the other Defndants would have been fun to watch as each tried to blame the other.
Yes before someone says but it was McCaw's company, the Aquilini family purchased the shares and therefore all the assets and liabilities of the existing company so the canucks remain on the hook. There may be some sort of arrangement as to an indemnity to the Aquilinis but that is something between the two parties to the sale and we may never know those details.
Back in 2008 Bertuzzi filed a third party notice claiming that the actions of former Vancouver Canucks head coach Marc Crawford contributed to Bertuzzi's infamous sucker punch of Steve Moore in March 2004. This notice brought in Crawford as a third party defendant (i.e. he was not sued directly by Moore) and so it was Bertuzzi as a party adverse in interest to Crawford and to the Canucks as Crawford was their employee.
Some quite damaging information against the Canucks emerged from discoveries of Crawford and it seems more was about to come to light.
Last week Bertuzzi withdrew the third party notice and Crawford is no longer a named defendant although he most certainly will be witness if the matter goes to trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in either September or October. If Bertuzzi, 36, who currently plays for the Detroit Red Wings, is still an active player the lawsuit will go to trial on Sept. 24, before the NHL season starts. If he is retired, the trial will begin Oct. 22.
Now why would Bertuzzi sue and then drop his suit against Crawford?
Well this was very slick bit of lawyering by Bertuzzi's legal counsel, the very able Geoffrey Adair - one of the best civil litigators in Canada.
It is all about insurance - Crawford had it as an employee of the Canucks. At least partly - While Crawford was covered by the Canucks’ insurance policy for damages in the lawsuit, he was still partially exposed because the policy has a limit of $10-million plus another $1-million for legal fees. So it was alo in Crawford's interests to get his name out as personal defendant
And Bertuzzi did not have insurance coverage... because while he was employed by the Canucks he committed a criminal act and as such his insurance coverage was void so any damages awarded to the Plaintiffs would have come out of his pocket directly.
As far as Moore's counsel, Tim Danson, was concerned Bertuzzi vs. Crawford (and in turn the Canucks) was good for his case because it was much more likely that with those defendants pointing their fingers at one another, useful facts and evidence would be more likely revealed than if Bertuzzi and the Canucks were presenting a united front.
It is likely that in return for Bertuzzi dropping his claim against Crawford he would have an agreement that that the Canucks and/or their insurers will kick in money to cover some or all of his liability should he be found liable to the plaintiffs at trial. As I said a neat bit of lawyering by Mr. Adair to help Bertuzzi cover over potential future losses by way of a damage award.
However Tim Danson is also a very able counsel.
Danson says hold on - I need to know what agreement has been reached but Adair says so sorry that is privileged information between Bertuzzi and the Canucks and you cannot have it.
So Danson goes in front of Superior Court Justice Master Ronald Dash and says:
"Hypothetically speaking, and by analogy, if the jury awarded $25 million, but there is an agreement that says we'll take care of $20 million, that would be highly relevant," lawyer Tim Danson said in Ontario Superior Court of Justice Tuesday in Toronto.
And the response?
Master Dash Dash gave Adair until January 23 to "reflect" and ordered any agreement between Bertuzzi, Crawford and the Vancouver Canucks to be presented to him for inspection at that time.
It also seems that Moore's earlier $38 million claim is being revised upwards. Not big surprise given the passage of time.
With Bertuzzi, Crawford and the Canucks now all singing from the same page of the choir book, we may not get the inside down and dirty play-by-play that we might have seen. However liability was never really the issue in terms of the battery as Bertuzzi has already been convicted on a criminal standard of proof. It will likely become more difficult to fix the team with liability however.
There are two potential claims against the Canucks - both are unique in the real of professional sports in Canada:
1. the doctrine of vicarious liability which occurs by operation of law – an employer is imputed with liability not for its own act but for the act of another person. Specifically, whether liability for Bertuzzi’s actions might extend to his team, as his employer; (the issue will be did the Canucks’ enterprise and that of the NHL game create or enhance the risk that produced Bertuzzi’s tortious act (the battery), and was that act so closely tied to the risk that the enterprise created that the team should be held vicariously liable?); and
2. the team’s potential exposure based on the alternative theory of negligent supervision. This is a separate tort (civil wrong) based on the theory that an employer itself creates unreasonable risks of harm by improper or unreasonable selection and supervision of an employee. This is the claim that the Canucks are seeking to limit the most by having Crawford removed from the lawsuit as a named Defendant. The reason the Canucks would want to forestall this claim is that punitive (aka punishment) damages may be awarded here and they are theoretically unlimited in amount unlike other types of damages.
Looks like much fun and games to follow if this does make it to trial without a settlement.
Yes before someone says but it was McCaw's company, the Aquilini family purchased the shares and therefore all the assets and liabilities of the existing company so the canucks remain on the hook. There may be some sort of arrangement as to an indemnity to the Aquilinis but that is something between the two parties to the sale and we may never know those details.
Back in 2008 Bertuzzi filed a third party notice claiming that the actions of former Vancouver Canucks head coach Marc Crawford contributed to Bertuzzi's infamous sucker punch of Steve Moore in March 2004. This notice brought in Crawford as a third party defendant (i.e. he was not sued directly by Moore) and so it was Bertuzzi as a party adverse in interest to Crawford and to the Canucks as Crawford was their employee.
Some quite damaging information against the Canucks emerged from discoveries of Crawford and it seems more was about to come to light.
Last week Bertuzzi withdrew the third party notice and Crawford is no longer a named defendant although he most certainly will be witness if the matter goes to trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in either September or October. If Bertuzzi, 36, who currently plays for the Detroit Red Wings, is still an active player the lawsuit will go to trial on Sept. 24, before the NHL season starts. If he is retired, the trial will begin Oct. 22.
Now why would Bertuzzi sue and then drop his suit against Crawford?
Well this was very slick bit of lawyering by Bertuzzi's legal counsel, the very able Geoffrey Adair - one of the best civil litigators in Canada.
It is all about insurance - Crawford had it as an employee of the Canucks. At least partly - While Crawford was covered by the Canucks’ insurance policy for damages in the lawsuit, he was still partially exposed because the policy has a limit of $10-million plus another $1-million for legal fees. So it was alo in Crawford's interests to get his name out as personal defendant
And Bertuzzi did not have insurance coverage... because while he was employed by the Canucks he committed a criminal act and as such his insurance coverage was void so any damages awarded to the Plaintiffs would have come out of his pocket directly.
As far as Moore's counsel, Tim Danson, was concerned Bertuzzi vs. Crawford (and in turn the Canucks) was good for his case because it was much more likely that with those defendants pointing their fingers at one another, useful facts and evidence would be more likely revealed than if Bertuzzi and the Canucks were presenting a united front.
It is likely that in return for Bertuzzi dropping his claim against Crawford he would have an agreement that that the Canucks and/or their insurers will kick in money to cover some or all of his liability should he be found liable to the plaintiffs at trial. As I said a neat bit of lawyering by Mr. Adair to help Bertuzzi cover over potential future losses by way of a damage award.
However Tim Danson is also a very able counsel.
Danson says hold on - I need to know what agreement has been reached but Adair says so sorry that is privileged information between Bertuzzi and the Canucks and you cannot have it.
So Danson goes in front of Superior Court Justice Master Ronald Dash and says:
"Hypothetically speaking, and by analogy, if the jury awarded $25 million, but there is an agreement that says we'll take care of $20 million, that would be highly relevant," lawyer Tim Danson said in Ontario Superior Court of Justice Tuesday in Toronto.
And the response?
Geoff Adair, Bertuzzi's lawyer, refused to confirm or deny there is any such agreement between his client and the Vancouver Canucks. Crawford's liability falls to the Canucks as he was their employee at the time.
"Anything we have agreed to with Vancouver is privileged," Adair said in court. "We're not disclosing anything."
But Superior Court Justice Master Ronald Dash offered a scenario that seemed to change Adair's thinking.
"If there was an agreement," speculated Dash, "then the trial judge might want to limit Bertuzzi's cross-examination of Crawford."
After that exchange, Adair softened his position, asking for more time to "reflect" on it.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012/01/04/sp-nhl-bertuzzi-crawford.html"Anything we have agreed to with Vancouver is privileged," Adair said in court. "We're not disclosing anything."
But Superior Court Justice Master Ronald Dash offered a scenario that seemed to change Adair's thinking.
"If there was an agreement," speculated Dash, "then the trial judge might want to limit Bertuzzi's cross-examination of Crawford."
After that exchange, Adair softened his position, asking for more time to "reflect" on it.
Master Dash Dash gave Adair until January 23 to "reflect" and ordered any agreement between Bertuzzi, Crawford and the Vancouver Canucks to be presented to him for inspection at that time.
It also seems that Moore's earlier $38 million claim is being revised upwards. Not big surprise given the passage of time.
The damages Moore is seeking could be more than the $38-million in his initial statement of claim. It is expected Moore’s lawyers will argue at trial that his injuries also prevent him from enjoying the post-hockey career he expected, making the former player entitled to damages for lost income over his entire working life. Moore graduated from Harvard University with a degree in environmental sciences. His lawyers are expected to argue the brain damage he suffered from Bertuzzi’s attack prevents him from taking up a lucrative career.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...lawsuit-against-marc-crawford/article2292332/With Bertuzzi, Crawford and the Canucks now all singing from the same page of the choir book, we may not get the inside down and dirty play-by-play that we might have seen. However liability was never really the issue in terms of the battery as Bertuzzi has already been convicted on a criminal standard of proof. It will likely become more difficult to fix the team with liability however.
There are two potential claims against the Canucks - both are unique in the real of professional sports in Canada:
1. the doctrine of vicarious liability which occurs by operation of law – an employer is imputed with liability not for its own act but for the act of another person. Specifically, whether liability for Bertuzzi’s actions might extend to his team, as his employer; (the issue will be did the Canucks’ enterprise and that of the NHL game create or enhance the risk that produced Bertuzzi’s tortious act (the battery), and was that act so closely tied to the risk that the enterprise created that the team should be held vicariously liable?); and
2. the team’s potential exposure based on the alternative theory of negligent supervision. This is a separate tort (civil wrong) based on the theory that an employer itself creates unreasonable risks of harm by improper or unreasonable selection and supervision of an employee. This is the claim that the Canucks are seeking to limit the most by having Crawford removed from the lawsuit as a named Defendant. The reason the Canucks would want to forestall this claim is that punitive (aka punishment) damages may be awarded here and they are theoretically unlimited in amount unlike other types of damages.
Looks like much fun and games to follow if this does make it to trial without a settlement.
Last edited by a moderator:
