Fig
Absolute Horse Shirt
- Dec 15, 2014
- 12,977
- 8,454
this is how i feel when i ask, who likes hawaiian pizza.
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.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. As the tweet shows, the lawsuit is about the latter. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence
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.
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
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.
Unintentional acts can be crimes if there was recklessness/negligence. If Wideman knew he wasn't right beforehand, it's criminal negligence.
Civil negligence laws, as I understand them, doesn't recognize those nuances.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.
Oh, shoot, you're right. Thought I was able to care about things and people independently of their contract situation.
At least, he waited until we were eliminated to file suit.
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.
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 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.
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
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?