Rashard Mendenhall sues sponsor

[papazoid]

Mendenhall is seeking more than $1 million in damages according to NBC's Darren Rovell, who writes that the 24-year-old could win the suit because his contract with Champion did not have a morals clause, which would provide for rightful termination under these circumstances.

 

The suit reads, "This case involves the core question of whether an athlete employed as a celebrity endorser loses the right to express opinions simply because the company whose products he endorses might disagree with some (but not all) of those opinions."

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/07/rashard-mendenhall-sues-sponsor-after-termination-for-bin-laden-tweets/1

[OCinBuffalo]

Mendenhall is seeking more than $1 million in damages according to NBC's Darren Rovell, who writes that the 24-year-old could win the suit because his contract with Champion did not have a morals clause, which would provide for rightful termination under these circumstances.

 

The suit reads, "This case involves the core question of whether an athlete employed as a celebrity endorser loses the right to express opinions simply because the company whose products he endorses might disagree with some (but not all) of those opinions."

 

http://content.usato...-laden-tweets/1

Mendenhall's PR person needs to tell Mendenhall's lawyer to STFU. A lawsuit like this means Mendenhall is not only "the guy that says dumbass things", he's "the guy that says dumbass things and then sues you for refusing to let his stupidity ruin your business". This kills all future deals he might have gotten. Unless this 24 year old thinks that this is the last endorsement deal he will ever get, or he's going to be happy with endorsing "Assclown Possie's Energy Drink, Yeah!" from here on out...somebody needs to tell this young man that his lawyer is not looking out for him.

 

Moreover some sales guy needs to tell him: while you are entitled to an opinion, you are supposed to be a sales guy, and for sales guys, stupidity or ignorance has immediate and severe consequences. For sales guys, the only opinion that matters is the client's. If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. If you struggling with saying something you probably shouldn't, punch yourself in the face.

Edited July 19, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[BuffaloWings]

I won't go so far as to tell Mendenhall to keep his mouth shut, but perhaps he should realize what he said/tweeted before sponsors drop him in this ultra-sensitive society.

[ieatcrayonz]

You think the sponsors are tough on him? Wait until the Steelers hear what he said. This is not the Steeler way. Just ask Ward, Harrison, and Big Ben. They were off the team so fast they................................wait. Never mind.

[CSBill]

hope he gets all he can, it will be his last endorsement deal

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Speaking of suing and lawsuits, etc… I'm a typical, normal person who is not involved with lawyers and doesn't even really have a regular lawyer…

 

And yet I'm part of a class in about 6 class action lawsuits (banks, mortgage companies, companies I bought products and services from, etc) and I bet some of you are in the same boat.

 

Amazing how much litigation is a part of our culture these days.

[eball]

Speaking of suing and lawsuits, etc… I'm a typical, normal person who is not involved with lawyers and doesn't even really have a regular lawyer…

 

And yet I'm part of a class in about 6 class action lawsuits (banks, mortgage companies, companies I bought products and services from, etc) and I bet some of you are in the same boat.

 

Amazing how much litigation is a part of our culture these days.

It's the only way the "little guy" can gain somewhat equal footing with corporate America. Unfortunately, the "in" thing these days is to try and "reform" a civil justice system that was working just fine.

 

Watch the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" for an interesting perspective. If nothing else, it makes you think about what has been presented to the public as "truth."

[Mr. WEO]

It's the only way the "little guy" can gain somewhat equal footing with corporate America. Unfortunately, the "in" thing these days is to try and "reform" a civil justice system that was working just fine.

 

Watch the HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" for an interesting perspective. If nothing else, it makes you think about what has been presented to the public as "truth."

 

Class action suits do little, if anything, to enrich the "little guy".

 

 

With a contigency basis for civil lawsuit fees and in the absence of a "loser pays" system, the "little guy" has plenty of access to attempt to extract financial reward for his actual or perceived harm.

[eball]

Class action suits do little, if anything, to enrich the "little guy".

 

 

With a contigency basis for civil lawsuit fees and in the absence of a "loser pays" system, the "little guy" has plenty of access to attempt to extract financial reward for his actual or perceived harm.

That's right, dammit. Let's put a notice out to all citizens to immediately begin socking away dollars into a litigation fund, so they're able to personally finance a claim against corporation xyz should they ever suffer harm. That would be a great system.

 

FYI -- "perceived" harm is rarely compensated. You do realize the corporation accused of negligence gets to have attorneys in the courtroom as well, right?

[Mr. WEO]

That's right, dammit. Let's put a notice out to all citizens to immediately begin socking away dollars into a litigation fund, so they're able to personally finance a claim against corporation xyz should they ever suffer harm. That would be a great system.

 

FYI -- "perceived" harm is rarely compensated. You do realize the corporation accused of negligence gets to have attorneys in the courtroom as well, right?

You are missing the point. You claimed that the little guy has limited access to civil litigation except through class action suits (where each claimant in the class will get relatively little money), yet the vast majority of civil suits are not against vast corporations, but instead against other individuals, hospitals, small businesses and other employers, municipalities, etc. In these cases there is an overabundance of plaintiff's lawyers available at little or no financial risk for the plaintiff to bring suit.

 

There is no need for the citizens to amass a "litigation fund". That's for large corporations to worry about. You should study the dubious history of asbestos and silicone inplant litigation.

 

Unfortunately, as you probably do realize, the corporate lawyer does not sit on the jury of the corporation's "peers".

[Offside Number 76]

Mendenhall's PR person needs to tell Mendenhall's lawyer to STFU. A lawsuit like this means Mendenhall is not only "the guy that says dumbass things", he's "the guy that says dumbass things and then sues you for refusing to let his stupidity ruin your business". This kills all future deals he might have gotten. Unless this 24 year old thinks that this is the last endorsement deal he will ever get, or he's going to be happy with endorsing "Assclown Possie's Energy Drink, Yeah!" from here on out...somebody needs to tell this young man that his lawyer is not looking out for him.

 

Moreover some sales guy needs to tell him: while you are entitled to an opinion, you are supposed to be a sales guy, and for sales guys, stupidity or ignorance has immediate and severe consequences. For sales guys, the only opinion that matters is the client's. If you don't know what to say, don't say anything. If you struggling with saying something you probably shouldn't, punch yourself in the face.

 

1. How many future deals is this really costing him?

 

2. Maybe he's the type of guy who would rather stick to HIS (not mine, yours, Champion's, but his) principles than get paid. Like a Curt Flood type. Nothing wrong with that.

[eball]

You are missing the point. You claimed that the little guy has limited access to civil litigation except through class action suits (where each claimant in the class will get relatively little money), yet the vast majority of civil suits are not against vast corporations, but instead against other individuals, hospitals, small businesses and other employers, municipalities, etc. In these cases there is an overabundance of plaintiff's lawyers available at little or no financial risk for the plaintiff to bring suit.

 

There is no need for the citizens to amass a "litigation fund". That's for large corporations to worry about. You should study the dubious history of asbestos and silicone inplant litigation.

 

Unfortunately, as you probably do realize, the corporate lawyer does not sit on the jury of the corporation's "peers".

Nah, I wasn't referring only to class actions -- just litigation in general. And I'm not "missing the point" at all -- I simply disagree with you.

 

The issue I take with your perspective is that you seem to believe people just "want" to file suit, for any (or no) reason at all. Well, it's a pain in the a$$ to do so, and it puts a person's life on public display. There is plenty of financial risk if a person needs to retain experts, conduct investigations, etc. -- plaintiffs' lawyers won't just foot those bills unless the case appears to be a very good one. And then there's the fact it can take years, with absolutely no guarantee of success. You know how many medical malpractice lawsuits are won by plaintiffs? Fewer than 5%. They're not settling out of court, either -- doctors won't allow it because it ruins their reputations.

 

I agree there are too many lawyers -- law school is big business. But it's a noble cause to protect the civil justice system against those who would seek to radically change the way it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[1billsfan]

The Steelers have become such an embarrassment for the league. Hope the Rooneys are proud they've overtaken the Bengals' mantel and become the cesspool of the NFL.

[mattsox]

The Steelers have become such an embarrassment for the league. Hope the Rooneys are proud they've overtaken the Bengals' mantel and become the cesspool of the NFL.

 

What would you rather have? Moral Cesspool or Superbowl Rings??? Just playing Devils Advocate

[Mr. WEO]

Nah, I wasn't referring only to class actions -- just litigation in general. And I'm not "missing the point" at all -- I simply disagree with you.

 

The issue I take with your perspective is that you seem to believe people just "want" to file suit, for any (or no) reason at all. Well, it's a pain in the a$$ to do so, and it puts a person's life on public display. There is plenty of financial risk if a person needs to retain experts, conduct investigations, etc. -- plaintiffs' lawyers won't just foot those bills unless the case appears to be a very good one. And then there's the fact it can take years, with absolutely no guarantee of success. You know how many medical malpractice lawsuits are won by plaintiffs? Fewer than 5%. They're not settling out of court, either -- doctors won't allow it because it ruins their reputations.

 

I agree there are too many lawyers -- law school is big business. But it's a noble cause to protect the civil justice system against those who would seek to radically change the way it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

You misrepresent my point. I don't thing people file suit for any or no reason. Some are actually harmed and need redress. But many file because there is a potential financial payoff to do so--and very little, if any, financial risk to them if they lose. As long as you can find a lwayer who sees merit (money) in your case, it is he or she who puts up the finacial risk (witnesses, experts, etc), not the client.

 

There really isn't much disincentive ("public display-certainly not) therefore to filing suit. All you need is a hungry lawyer. Most plaintiffs lawyers are looking for a quick settlement and loathe going to trial---if only 5% of plaintiffs win suits, then most are found to be without merit by a judge or jury. It is absolutely untrue that "They're not settling out of court, either -- doctors won't allow it because it ruins their reputations". Most often, unless a doc is footing the bill for his own defense, has no choice if his malpractice insurer wants to settle. Every doctor in this country has every case he or she has been named to (whether they won, lost, or were let out of a case) entered into a national database and he/she has to report all cases named in to any prospective employer and hospital they seek priviledges in. Not a fair system.

 

Even the most baseless suit has to be defended at a significant cost. I'm not advocating a "radical change". A simple "loser pays" system

would still guarantee access for plaintiffs with actual injury, harm, damages. It would weed out the nuisance cases and eliminate the "shotgun" approach to suing everyone in sight, hoping to nail at least one defendent with a settlement payout.

[eball]

You misrepresent my point. I don't thing people file suit for any or no reason. Some are actually harmed and need redress. But many file because there is a potential financial payoff to do so--and very little, if any, financial risk to them if they lose. As long as you can find a lwayer who sees merit (money) in your case, it is he or she who puts up the finacial risk (witnesses, experts, etc), not the client.

 

There really isn't much disincentive ("public display-certainly not) therefore to filing suit. All you need is a hungry lawyer. Most plaintiffs lawyers are looking for a quick settlement and loathe going to trial---if only 5% of plaintiffs win suits, then most are found to be without merit by a judge or jury. It is absolutely untrue that "They're not settling out of court, either -- doctors won't allow it because it ruins their reputations". Most often, unless a doc is footing the bill for his own defense, has no choice if his malpractice insurer wants to settle. Every doctor in this country has every case he or she has been named to (whether they won, lost, or were let out of a case) entered into a national database and he/she has to report all cases named in to any prospective employer and hospital they seek priviledges in. Not a fair system.

 

Even the most baseless suit has to be defended at a significant cost. I'm not advocating a "radical change". A simple "loser pays" system

would still guarantee access for plaintiffs with actual injury, harm, damages. It would weed out the nuisance cases and eliminate the "shotgun" approach to suing everyone in sight, hoping to nail at least one defendent with a settlement payout.

It's a good discussion and I understand what you're saying. I'd argue, however, that the number of "shotgun" lawsuits is grossly exaggerated. There are rules in place to punish those who file frivolous lawsuits. And for the true "victim" who may not have an absolutely clear-cut case, a "loser pays" system really does discriminate and eliminates that person's access to the courts.

[Mr. WEO]

It's a good discussion and I understand what you're saying. I'd argue, however, that the number of "shotgun" lawsuits is grossly exaggerated. There are rules in place to punish those who file frivolous lawsuits. And for the true "victim" who may not have an absolutely clear-cut case, a "loser pays" system really does discriminate and eliminates that person's access to the courts.

In medicine, shotgun namings are the norm, not an exaggeration, because each entity (physician, hospital) has a different insurer and therefore a separate potential payoff source. Even if ultimately released, all named defendents have to pay to be defended. There is, essentially no penalty for a "frivolous lawsuit" to the plaintiff.

 

A loser system will never prevent access to the courts. Who controls access to the civil system right now? It's the plaintiffs lawyers. You can't get in unless you find a lawyer to take your case. The problem is that the system allows these people to trawl for cases with a huge net--look on the back cover of your yellowpages directory or watch cable TV at night and you will see tons of ads for plaintiffs lawyers offering "no fee unless you win" deals to anyone with a beef. Their goal is to pick the low hanging fruit (and the occaisional slam dunk true human suffering disaster case) and pressure defendents or their insurers for quick settlements. They want to invest as little as possible in these cases in order to maximize profits. Therefore, they have to do a lot of volume.

 

"loser pays" would remove the incentive for plaintiff's firms to practice this way. They could be more honest with a potential client and tell them this is not a winnable case and a waste of time. A legitimate case isn't one which is guaranteed to win for the plaintiff, you know.

 

I've been involved in suits and it is an incredible waste of time and money. The outcome is the same--the defendents are either released by the judge (because they were inappropriately named in the suit) or the jury, completely predictably, finds for the defendent. In any truly disastrous case, the malpractice insurers are dying to settle and avoid a massive jury verdict for damages. Any time a case goes to court, the insurers and the defendents have a solid case and the numbers prove this. Most plaintiffs are doomed in court--and the whole exercise was completely unnecessary.

[eball]

A loser system will never prevent access to the courts. Who controls access to the civil system right now? It's the plaintiffs lawyers. You can't get in unless you find a lawyer to take your case. The problem is that the system allows these people to trawl for cases with a huge net--look on the back cover of your yellowpages directory or watch cable TV at night and you will see tons of ads for plaintiffs lawyers offering "no fee unless you win" deals to anyone with a beef. Their goal is to pick the low hanging fruit (and the occaisional slam dunk true human suffering disaster case) and pressure defendents or their insurers for quick settlements. They want to invest as little as possible in these cases in order to maximize profits. Therefore, they have to do a lot of volume.

 

"loser pays" would remove the incentive for plaintiff's firms to practice this way. They could be more honest with a potential client and tell them this is not a winnable case and a waste of time. A legitimate case isn't one which is guaranteed to win for the plaintiff, you know.

Unfortunately, the insurance companies are to blame for what you see with respect to lawyers' ads on TV and the yellow pages -- particularly when it comes to auto accidents. If the insurers simply treated people fairly, nobody would need to find a lawyer. What you have happening, however, is insurance company "hit squads" who assault an injured party immediately after a claim is reported. Adjusters will visit victims in their hospital rooms or homes THE NEXT DAY after an accident. They put a "scheduled release" in front of them paying a couple of bucks up front and a certain limit for medical expenses (usually $5K) and the victims sign away their rights without even knowing the extent of their injuries. I'm not making this up -- it happens every day. Lawyers have all sorts of direct solicitation restrictions, but insurance companies have NONE.

 

It is SO easy to blame the plaintiffs' lawyers for all of the claims, but you have to look at the underlying cause.

 

I know there are bad lawyers out there, obviously. But the insurance industry is just plain evil.

[Mr. WEO]

Unfortunately, the insurance companies are to blame for what you see with respect to lawyers' ads on TV and the yellow pages -- particularly when it comes to auto accidents. If the insurers simply treated people fairly, nobody would need to find a lawyer. What you have happening, however, is insurance company "hit squads" who assault an injured party immediately after a claim is reported. Adjusters will visit victims in their hospital rooms or homes THE NEXT DAY after an accident. They put a "scheduled release" in front of them paying a couple of bucks up front and a certain limit for medical expenses (usually $5K) and the victims sign away their rights without even knowing the extent of their injuries. I'm not making this up -- it happens every day. Lawyers have all sorts of direct solicitation restrictions, but insurance companies have NONE.

 

It is SO easy to blame the plaintiffs' lawyers for all of the claims, but you have to look at the underlying cause.

 

I know there are bad lawyers out there, obviously. But the insurance industry is just plain evil.

I was referring to malpractice insurance, but I agree that the auto insurance is a dirty business on both sides.

 

The difference between auto insurance lawyers and personal injury lawyers is that with car accidents, there is almost certainly going to be a payment to the plaintiff. The lawyer is just there to get you the maximum. The insurer is going to "lose" (pay) every time. There's very little money in it, per case, for the lawyer--but he/she doesn't have to invest much in these cases.

 

In most personal injury cases, the defendent is not the insurance company. It's an individual, a hospital, an employer or some other corporation.

[eball]

I was referring to malpractice insurance, but I agree that the auto insurance is a dirty business on both sides.

 

The difference between auto insurance lawyers and personal injury lawyers is that with car accidents, there is almost certainly going to be a payment to the plaintiff. The lawyer is just there to get you the maximum. The insurer is going to "lose" (pay) every time. There's very little money in it, per case, for the lawyer--but he/she doesn't have to invest much in these cases.

In most personal injury cases, the defendent is not the insurance company. It's an individual, a hospital, an employer or some other corporation.

That's right. You sue the person, but the lawyer who shows up in court is hired by the insurance company, and that's who pays the claim. It's one of the most ridiculous things about personal injury trials. The jury is led to believe that the poor defendant is going to have to pay the claim, and aren't supposed to know there's an insurance company standing behind them.