Dodgers want judge to reject beating victim's claims

*facepalm*

The Dodgers should take care of this guy. Another example of McCourt's influence on the team...

It would be good PR for the Dodgers to take care of Stow, but this lawsuit is another reason we need serious tort reform.

As soon as you charge people to park, then you are culpable. You have assumed certain responsibilities and risks. That is why you have insurance.
Wasting their time, just settle with the guy and his family. This is not good PR for a team with enough bad PR to fill their stadium.

*head desk*

Is there a more despised man than Frank McCourt?

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 09:51 AM ET  02.04 by hbomb

It would be good PR for the Dodgers to take care of Stow, but this lawsuit is another reason we need serious tort reform.

How so? The Dodgers knew of the possibility of fan violence, but didn't have sufficient security to address it. This is exactly what tort law is supposed to address. If this case is thrown out, you can be damn sure cheap owners all across the spectrum of sports and entertainment would see it as license to skimp on security.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 10:53 AM ET  02.04 by williewilliejuan

How so? The Dodgers knew of the possibility of fan violence, but didn't have sufficient security to address it. This is exactly what tort law is supposed to address. If this case is thrown out, you can be damn sure cheap owners all across the spectrum of sports and entertainment would see it as license to skimp on security.

Agree.
You cannot charge people for something and then say you are on your own....Surprised they even tried this tactic.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 10:53 AM ET  02.04 by williewilliejuan

How so? The Dodgers knew of the possibility of fan violence, but didn't have sufficient security to address it. This is exactly what tort law is supposed to address. If this case is thrown out, you can be damn sure cheap owners all across the spectrum of sports and entertainment would see it as license to skimp on security.

One could make the argument that this should have remained between the victum a those that assaulted him ... personal responsibility and all ...

One could also make the argument of "why stop with the Dodgers?" ... isn't it MLB's fault for creating such an environment that endangers all?

Same thing applies to a twenty year old wooden ladder ... where does it stop?

*victim ...

*sigh*

RE 5.... Perhaps the person known as the "wife"

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 11:09 AM ET  02.04 by jctoo, cult elitist

One could make the argument that this should have remained between the victum a those that assaulted him ... personal responsibility and all ... One could also make the argument of "why stop with the Dodgers?"

It all comes down to the opportunity to squeeze a buck through litigation. It has long been an American staple. You could see this coming from the moment it happened. Dollar signs are all that many people need to see.

What low-lifes the Dodgers are here. Everyone knows what the right thing to do is. They are liable, and everyone can see that. And yet they deny it. So many contemptable people hide behind their own intrepretation of the law. It's reprehensible.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 09:37 AM ET  02.04 by ...the best policy

The Dodgers should take care of this guy. Another example of McCourt's influence on the team...

What does taking care of th guy mean? You can pay all of his medical bills and give him a few million to cover loss of quality of life and not being able to work but how much is enough? We all know they offered to pay the man something but when lawyers are involved it is usually a lot more than what reasonable people think is fair. Im quite sure they did not intend for someone to get beaten to within an inch of his life. Not even good ole Frank and Jamie are that bad of people. Besides, the McCourts have no hand in running the team anymore, no since the Commish stepped in and put his own man in charge.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 11:36 AM ET  02.04 by Rickapolis

What low-lifes the Dodgers are here. Everyone knows what the right thing to do is. They are liable, and everyone can see that. And yet they deny it. So many contemptable people hide behind their own intrepretation of the law. It's reprehensible.

I'm sorry did anyone from the Dodgers attack the man? The people that attacked the man are liable. What you are saying is so stupid. By your very low standards, if you get shot in a bank robbery it's the banks fault not the robbers.

You can add more security and that does not mean nothing will ever happen. Sometimes people are set on hurting someone and nothing can be done about it. We are talking about career thugs jumping on someone. The problem with THE LAW is that if they pay the man anything they are saying they are liable and opening themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits and no just from this man.

And how much do you this the man lawyers are using their interpretation of the law to squeeze as much money out of this as possible?

McCrook, would do anything to get away from this case, which its part of his responsability regardless of the situation, brian stow injuries and being in coma for almost the whole year, can't convence the judge?? the dodgers are guilty from head to the toes, and the court should send the bill to McCrook, after the sell from the team its completed this lavish owner should pay to the victim all what he already deserve!!!!

why did McCrook remove all the parking lots cameras?? oh it was to hide any type of evidence!!!

why did McCrook remove all the parking lots cameras?? oh it was to hide any type of evidence!!!

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 11:49 AM ET  02.04 by diegomitch84

did anyone from the Dodgers attack the man? The people that attacked the man are liable

itsn't that the dodgers people attack the man, its the poor security in the dodgers parking lot, if you fall inside the store, the store its resposable for that accident, did somebody trip him down to make him fall in his back or head? no, but just with being inside the store that makes the store responsable to pay all the damage to that especific person, on the dodgers case, there its no differences the parking lot belongs to the property of the dodgers for the same type of reason they are obligated to take responsability for their poor public safety, lets not forget that after the dodgers being sold to another owner the parking lot still belongs to the McCOURT family, you can't throw the stone and then hide your hand as if nothing happen!!!

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 09:51 AM ET  02.04 by hbomb

It would be good PR for the Dodgers to take care of Stow, but this lawsuit is another reason we need serious tort reform.

i wonder why nobody sues the dead after a person die??? oh yeah the death its death and can't sue that part!!!

the dodgers owner its guilty all the way to his on concience, that he refuse to acknowledge that, its a totally different point of vew!!