Mr. WEO Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 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. What?? In every malpractice case that makes it to court, the jurors understand, completely, the opposite of what you claim. They absolutely know that the defendent isn't going to pay directly out of pocket--no one is leading them to any other conclusion. In fact one reason he's being sued is because he has insurance ("deep pockets"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 What?? In every malpractice case that makes it to court, the jurors understand, completely, the opposite of what you claim. They absolutely know that the defendent isn't going to pay directly out of pocket--no one is leading them to any other conclusion. In fact one reason he's being sued is because he has insurance ("deep pockets"). All I can tell you, particularly in the case of auto accidents, is that you're dead wrong. It is AMAZING to me how many people (jurors) don't understand that a person being sued is being defended by their insurance company -- and it's prohibited to even mention the words "automobile insurance" within earshot of the jury or it's a mistrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 All I can tell you, particularly in the case of auto accidents, is that you're dead wrong. It is AMAZING to me how many people (jurors) don't understand that a person being sued is being defended by their insurance company -- and it's prohibited to even mention the words "automobile insurance" within earshot of the jury or it's a mistrial. I've already acknowledged the difference between auto accident claims trials and the vast majority of civil suits. Even in the cases you mention, it is likely that most jurors assume most drivers (like themselves) have insurance--including those being sued--and that the insurance company will be paying at least part or all of any judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I've already acknowledged the difference between auto accident claims trials and the vast majority of civil suits. Even in the cases you mention, it is likely that most jurors assume most drivers (like themselves) have insurance--including those being sued--and that the insurance company will be paying at least part or all of any judgement. Wrong! When you speak to jurors after a case, you get responses like, "we couldn't figure out why the insurance company wasn't paying for this" or "we figured the insurance company already paid what they were supposed to, and now it's up to the defendant to pay the rest." The lack of general knowledge and a basic understanding of the way automobile insurance works is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. 1. How many future deals is this not costing him? At the very least he is destroying his "brand". Perhaps the answer to your question is 0, because tweeting that nonsense already killed any deals he might have had. He might have avoided this with an apology, but now, he's screwing himself as a "businessman". These athletes love to talk about being businessmen, well, if they are, then this is flat out stupid business, as any real businessman knows. 2. Which principle are we talking about here? No killing, cheating, lying, stealing? Which universally accepted principle covers foisting an opinion based solely on ignorance and/or stupidity on the public? Curt Flood...like...what? There is no comparison here. Not even close. When you say something stupid, you acknowledge it, you apologize and move on, if you are respectable person. It is that very behavior that derives respect from others, thus making you respect-able. Saying something stupid and then suing somebody who is directly hurt by it, makes you unable to be respected. Why would anyone want to do a real deal with a person they cannot respect? Oh, well, there's always Celebrity Boxing for Mendenhall...yeah, that's respectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 1. How many future deals is this not costing him? At the very least he is destroying his "brand". Perhaps the answer to your question is 0, because tweeting that nonsense already killed any deals he might have had. He might have avoided this with an apology, but now, he's screwing himself as a "businessman". These athletes love to talk about being businessmen, well, if they are, then this is flat out stupid business, as any real businessman knows. 2. Which principle are we talking about here? No killing, cheating, lying, stealing? Which universally accepted principle covers foisting an opinion based solely on ignorance and/or stupidity on the public? Curt Flood...like...what? There is no comparison here. Not even close. When you say something stupid, you acknowledge it, you apologize and move on, if you are respectable person. It is that very behavior that derives respect from others, thus making you respect-able. Saying something stupid and then suing somebody who is directly hurt by it, makes you unable to be respected. Why would anyone want to do a real deal with a person they cannot respect? Oh, well, there's always Celebrity Boxing for Mendenhall...yeah, that's respectable. Well, his brand already is destroyed, isn't it? And even if it isn't, if he thinks he can make a point that athletes don't give up their right to express opinions simply because of sponsorship deals, and he wants to put his time and his money where his mouth is, I can admire his commitment to making the business world a little more friendly for other players (there's the Curt Flood comparison). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well, his brand already is destroyed, isn't it? And even if it isn't, if he thinks he can make a point that athletes don't give up their right to express opinions simply because of sponsorship deals, and he wants to put his time and his money where his mouth is, I can admire his commitment to making the business world a little more friendly for other players (there's the Curt Flood comparison). I'm not sure Curt Flood wanted the market to be more open for Osama lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not sure Curt Flood wanted the market to be more open for Osama lovers. I'm not sure I appreciate your curt comments about flooding the market with Obama lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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." Right, I'm sure this is why the sponsors pulled out - because they disagree with some of his opinions. Not because he is a full-fledged mouth-breather whose jersey # exceeds his IQ. And it's not like sponsors haven't pulled out of a billion other deals for less stupid comments. And how has he "lost the right to express opinions"? He wasn't arrested. I guess Bill Maher should've sued the ABC sponsors that got him kicked off the air post 9/11. Lol @ any chance of this pathetic suit holding up. Hope to see this pile of trash flipping burgers soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Right, I'm sure this is why the sponsors pulled out - because they disagree with some of his opinions. Not because he is a full-fledged mouth-breather whose jersey # exceeds his IQ. And it's not like sponsors haven't pulled out of a billion other deals for less stupid comments. And how has he "lost the right to express opinions"? He wasn't arrested. I guess Bill Maher should've sued the ABC sponsors that got him kicked off the air post 9/11. Lol @ any chance of this pathetic suit holding up. Hope to see this pile of trash flipping burgers soon. The descriptor "mouth breather" always cracks me up. Probably because of the visual. Anyway, great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts