Lawyer for Dodgers Suggest that Stow might be Partially Liable for His Injuries

[Robotech]

Please read the end of the fifth paragraph. Unbelievable!!! Even if this is what you will end up arguing in court, why say it in public right now???

Dodgers say Giants fan's attackers liable in suit - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

 

[filosofy29]

Because Lawyers are just like any other kind of negotiator. You start with something outlandish so that the other side doesn't get too much of what they want.

I agree it's absurd, but saying that Stowe had zero fault would already be opening up McCourt/Dodgers to more trouble than they want. I agree though Robo, it does sound foolish to say it in public at this juncture. Perhaps tzill can try to rationalize the vocal posturing?

 

[Robotech]

Because Lawyers are just like any other kind of negotiator. You start with something outlandish so that the other side doesn't get too much of what they want.

I agree it's absurd, but saying that Stowe had zero fault would already be opening up McCourt/Dodgers to more trouble than they want. I agree though Robo, it does sound foolish to say it in public at this juncture. Perhaps tzill can try to rationalize the and vocal posturing?

I thought lawyers were supposed to know PR, too. Maybe this one wishes he could take back that last sentence. Or, maybe saying something like this really won't do much to prejudice an LA jury, so he doesn't really care.

 

[tzill]

Because Lawyers are just like any other kind of negotiator. You start with something outlandish so that the other side doesn't get too much of what they want.

I agree it's absurd, but saying that Stowe had zero fault would already be opening up McCourt/Dodgers to more trouble than they want. I agree though Robo, it does sound foolish to say it in public at this juncture. Perhaps tzill can try to rationalize the and vocal posturing?

You've got a basic grasp, but let me add this. 97% of all cases never make it to trial, so while you need to prepare as if trial will occur, you also (as an attorney) understand that a settlement is much more likely.

Second, think through what end of the game scenarios are like in sports -- drunkeness, testosterone posturing, etc. It's not irrational to think that Stow or one of his buddies said "fuck you, you fucking doyerfan" or something similar. I'm not saying I know this happened, but it's not beyond the pale.

Third, understand that a civil suit is all about apportioning liability. It's not about guilt, or punishment -- that's a criminal suit concern. It's about compensating the plaintiff for his injuries, his lost wages, his doctor bills, his lost earnings (past and future), pain and suffering, and loss of companionship for his family. We can't really give these things back so we do the next best thing -- we give money. Say, all totaled up, that these things come to $10MM (just pulling a number out of my butt here). Well, with the doyers/McCheap as one participant (shitty security), the animals who attacked him (egregious act), and finally Stow's possee (possibly inciting/egging on) you've got to divide that $10MM pie up. If the Stow folks (Bryan and his buddies) are found to be even 2% liable, that's $200k and worth arguing about. If McCheaps attorney says "Mr. Stow was in no way liable for what happened, it's a tragedy what happened" then $200k gets put on someone else to pay (quite likely McCheap since the animals are probably judgment proof).

Last, we all have a tendency to look at the results of an event (horrible near death beating) and then to overlook contributing factors. Imagine a billionaire's son did the deed instead of two low-life animals. How many of us would even be looking at McCheap to contribute to the settlement? Probably most of us would think "soak that fucking kid and his family for everything they've got and give it to Stow." I know that's what I'd be thinking.

But, in a calmer, more dispassionate view, the animals are probably 75% at fault for being animals, and McCheap is 20-25% at fault for not having sufficient security that would have arrested/ejected the animals earlier in the game. And maybe (I don't know this) the Stow clique is 3% responsible for taunting or talking back. Or, maybe nobody associated with Stow did anything contributory. That's what the discovery phase of the lawsuit is all about.

The attorney's statement is simply part of the process. I wouldn't read anything into it, and I'm sure Stow's lawyer is telling him the same.

 

[tzill]

I thought lawyers were supposed to know PR, too. Maybe this one wishes he could take back that last sentence. Or, maybe saying something like this really won't do much to prejudice an LA jury, so he doesn't really care.

I assume you're referring to this:

"And does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?”’

I think this is a fair question. We don't know the facts and he finishes with this:


“We want all the defendants and all the facts before the court,”

That sounds like a solid attorney to me.

 

[Heathbar012]

You've got a basic grasp, but let me add this. 97% of all cases never make it to trial, so while you need to prepare as if trial will occur, you also (as an attorney) understand that a settlement is much more likely.

Second, think through what end of the game scenarios are like in sports -- drunkeness, testosterone posturing, etc. It's not irrational to think that Stow or one of his buddies said "fuck you, you fucking doyerfan" or something similar. I'm not saying I know this happened, but it's not beyond the pale.

Third, understand that a civil suit is all about apportioning liability. It's not about guilt, or punishment -- that's a criminal suit concern. It's about compensating the plaintiff for his injuries, his lost wages, his doctor bills, his lost earnings (past and future), pain and suffering, and loss of companionship for his family. We can't really give these things back so we do the next best thing -- we give money. Say, all totaled up, that these things come to $10MM (just pulling a number out of my butt here). Well, with the doyers/McCheap as one participant (shitty security), the animals who attacked him (egregious act), and finally Stow's possee (possibly inciting/egging on) you've got to divide that $10MM pie up. If the Stow folks (Bryan and his buddies) are found to be even 2% liable, that's $200k and worth arguing about. If McCheaps attorney says "Mr. Stow was in no way liable for what happened, it's a tragedy what happened" then $200k gets put on someone else to pay (quite likely McCheap since the animals are probably judgment proof).

Last, we all have a tendency to look at the results of an event (horrible near death beating) and then to overlook contributing factors. Imagine a billionaire's son did the deed instead of two low-life animals. How many of us would even be looking at McCheap to contribute to the settlement? Probably most of us would think "soak that fucking kid and his family for everything they've got and give it to Stow." I know that's what I'd be thinking.

But, in a calmer, more dispassionate view, the animals are probably 75% at fault for being animals, and McCheap is 20-25% at fault for not having sufficient security that would have arrested/ejected the animals earlier in the game. And maybe (I don't know this) the Stow clique is 3% responsible for taunting or talking back. Or, maybe nobody associated with Stow did anything contributory. That's what the discovery phase of the lawsuit is all about.

The attorney's statement is simply part of the process. I wouldn't read anything into it, and I'm sure Stow's lawyer is telling him the same.

Where the real money is made... for the attorneys.

Thanks for the analysis, tzill. Unfortunately, no one was going to win or look good in this situation the second those guys struck Stow, or anyone for that matter.

 

[Robotech]

Or maybe McCheap is trying to show Stow's lawyers that he doesn't care how bad he looks in public, so Stow should just settle.