BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Topic: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Author

Message

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,781

Status: Offline

Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:06:15 AM

This question is directed at the several lawyers we have who are regulars on this board.

If, as has been reported, Boo was sucker punched while trying to break up a fight outside the bar, would he have legal grounds for a civil suit against the Courtside employee who knocked him to the ground? I realize that there are several versions of what happened that night floating around. My question is directed strictly at the scenario mentioned above. Treat it as a hypothetical. Thanks.

Last Edited: 11/8/2010 10:09:05 AM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:17:38 AM

You have legal grounds to file suit, this is American, we can file suit for about anything.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Flomo-genized
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:22:15 AM

I'm not a personal injury attorney, but generally speaking I believe the answer would be yes. Whenever someone makes unauthorized contact with you, resulting in an injury, you can potentially file suit for the tort of battery.

But having a legal basis to file suit doesn't necessarily mean you'll win. There are potential issues of self-defense (was the defendant reasonably fearful of being attacked), assumption of the risk (was the possibility of inadvertently getting hit obvious to one entering the scuffle, even in a peace-keeping role), etc., any of which could limit or bar any recovery. Ultimately, if such a case went to trial, it would come down to how the jury viewed the facts.

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:24:50 AM

IMO, yes. This is a classic, first year torts hypothetical. Battery is an intentional tort. Generally, employers are responsible for employees' negligence, but not intentional torts. BUT, one of the big exceptions to the rule is where the employee's job naturally might involve committing intentional torts. A bar bouncer is the classic example. Essentially, if your job involves beating people up, your employer should be responsible if you wrongfully beat someone up.

There might also be a negligence claim directly against the employer for negligent hiring or training (if the employer did not tell the employees to take the fight only to the door, for example).

As to JCW's comment that you can sue for just about anything, that's pretty much right. One of my pet peeves is family members constantly asking me if they can sue somebody for something that happened to them Sure, you can sue. But the important question is, "Can you win?" or at least "Can you force a settlement?"

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:30:41 AM

C Money, don't tell OCF that I may be correct on something, he really hates that

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,781

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:31:24 AM

Thanks, Flomo and C. Money for thoughtful answers to my hypothetical. The particular version of events included in this hypothetical is the one that I personally find most consistent with Boo's personality. He has to be one of the nicest and most "mild mannered" athletes we've ever had play at Ohio. I guess we'll now see how this all plays out in reality.

Edit: Answers from two lawyers, and one poster who plays one on the internet!

Last Edited: 11/8/2010 10:33:54 AM by OhioCatFan

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 10:57:42 AM

Don't worry OCF, I have been in the civil litigation battles more than some attorneys.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Bobcatzblitz
General User

Member Since: 7/21/2010
Post Count: 1,739

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 12:25:04 PM

The thing is this guy is not a registered security of any type..what these bar owners fail to realize is bartenders..door guys and bouncers do not have ANY special priviledge to punch kick bite tase or shoot anyone..Boo will own courtside if he sues and the fact that this happened outside really kills any chance that courtside has for well self defense..because your bartenders and door guys ran out from the safety of closed doors to confront a situation..your out numbered but you run to the fight..haha come on.Boo is a great guy and everyone even courtside patrons said he was holding people back and being a peace maker and he got sucker punched and was hit several times while he was down..yes these young men are football players but the courtside thugs are guys that have nothing to lose..flunked out or just are plain townies and most are mid twentys..with several being 30 yrs old..you don't get any kudos for sucker punching a peaceful QB or beating up walk on players..funny they know who to harass and who not too.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 12:59:27 PM

From the evidence that's come out so far, I don't think this is much of an air-tight case for anyone, including Boo. There's way too much inconsistency in facts, and no highly credible report.

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,781

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 1:18:17 PM

I think a lot would hinge on the credibility in the eyes of a jury of the witnesses who would be called to testify on both sides. I agree that the various stories are worlds apart as to what actually transpired.

HeHateMiami
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Mason, OH
Post Count: 473

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 1:38:30 PM

C Money wrote:

Essentially, if your job involves beating people up, your employer should be responsible if you wrongfully beat someone up.

Meaning not only could Boo have a hypothetical case against the Courtside employee, as you ask in your initial post, but one against Courtside (a business with much deeper pockets).

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 2:25:42 PM

HeHateMiami wrote:

C Money wrote:

Essentially, if your job involves beating people up, your employer should be responsible if you wrongfully beat someone up.

Meaning not only could Boo have a hypothetical case against the Courtside employee, as you ask in your initial post, but one against Courtside (a business with much deeper pockets).

Crap, I totally went into lawyer mode and subconsciously ignored that the initial question was about the employee, not the employer. Yeah, you always chase the deep pockets. Mr. Bouncer/Bartender probably doesn't have anything to get, so naturally you want to go after the employer, which has not only assets of the business, but also, most likely, a nice fat insurance policy.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,498

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 2:32:29 PM

I am also not a personal injury lawyer, and in fact I have dropped my Bar membership to inactive. I agree with the opinions above of C Money and Flomo, and the one by JCW, too. Yes, you can sue for anything, but whether you win or not is another story. Yes, I think that they can sue the Bar as well as the individual because of the nature of his job, but perhaps also potentially for negligence in hiring him, if he has a history of violence. In the end it will come down to who the judge or jury believes - was Boo an active participant, or just trying to break things up? Was the bouncer the aggressor, or acting in self defense?

I would also point out that the Bar almost certainly has a type of insurance known as "Medical Payments" which will pay the medical bills of persons injured on the premises without regards to liability, so even without a determination of liability by the bar, their insurance might pay the Medical bills. I'm not sure about that, though.

To be honest, I would be surprised if that guy still has a job today. As others have commented, it is one thing to the bouncer to be involved in activities inside the bar, but quite another for him to go out into the parking lot and get into a fight. I've never seen a bouncer that do that.

Edit - I also agree that if Boo wanted to sue, it should be the bar, not the employee, for the reasons mentioned above - the employee may have no money, but the Bar certainly does, and has insurance.

Last Edited: 11/8/2010 2:34:44 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,365

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 7:54:56 PM

I'm also not a PI lawyer and I don't even play one TV, but there's also the bartender from the neighboring bar who the Post says came over to lend a hand, uh, fist. He could have liability too, but I'm not sure if his employer could also be sued since he probably was not acting within the scope of his employment.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:09:37 PM

The employer or employers are almost always filed in the initial suit, one reason is you may get a quick couple of grand to get dismissed, the other is business have pockets, and the attorneys will let the judge decide who can be sued and who can not be sued, and it cost you no more money to sue 5 people as it does 2 people. Unless of course you get nailed on filing a frivilous lawsuit and have to pay damages and legal fees to all of those you sued and that does happen.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Bobcatbob
General User

Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,347

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:17:22 PM

OK, so a law suit is likely and a counter suit just as likely. Does the fact that no charges have been filed have an impact on the outcome or even on the decison to sue or not?

It would seem emminently beneficial to one party or the other if the APD had fingered somebody.

They still might, I understand, which would surely help the "other" somebody.

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:22:42 PM

Charges have absolutely nothing to do with a civil suit.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,781

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:23:54 PM

A civil suit does not require any criminal charges, though an indictment and conviction would greatly enhance the plaintiff's case in any civil action. My guess, however, is that a civil suit in this case would be more likely if criminal charges aren't filed because the injured party might feel they needed to do something to bring justice to the fist-wielding perp. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on the radio or the internet.

Edit: You beat me too it, JCW. I was typing my response while you posted yours. If our two great minds agree, how can anyone argue any more about this?

Last Edited: 11/8/2010 9:27:05 PM by OhioCatFan

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:30:21 PM

Just kills you that we agree doesn't it

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

KC Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 11/22/2006
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post Count: 260

Status: Offline

RE: Lawyers only: Question about the Boo case

Posted: 11/8/2010 9:42:03 PM

If Boo can't play in the Temple game, and we end up on the wrong side of the score. I think all Bobcat fans should file a class action suit against this thug

Showing Replies:	1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 154 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

154 Guests
0 Registered Users

There are no other users looking at this page.