Nyheim Hines is suing the person who hit him on a jetski

[wettlaufer]

1 hour ago, Buffalo619 said:

That’s not how it works. If Hines jetski was moving, they will share negligence. Defendant will counter sue and wind fall. If Hines was smart, he’d let this go. He’ll wind up paying more oop than the defendant. 

That's not what happened. Hines was sitting there on his stationary jet ski and homeboy came in and crashed into him.

[Nester]

3 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

Does one need insurance to ride on a jet ski? Maybe from the rental place if the other guy was renting it? Otherwise, unless the other guy is a wealthy as him, I don’t see Hines getting much of anything from this guy. But, sure, anyone can sue anyone for any reason they please. 

need? Na, but if you what to protect your assets if you negligently cause property damage or bodily injury to a 3rd party it’s a good idea, homeowners or tenant policies provide personal liability however most have limitations on watercraft if not exclusions. 

[CheshireCT]

20 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

Are you trying to tell me jets skis aren’t dangerous?  

 

They are not dangerous. When you're out on the water there is plenty of open space, you shouldn't be getting near any other boats or jet skis. In shallow water or near swimmers you should be slowing down to idle speed.

[RobbRiddick]

I hope the Bills avenge him by taking out the New York Jet Skis

 

[CheshireCT]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

In the USA, there are over 1000 accidents a year on jet skis with about 60 of those fatal.  Here in San Diego, a 12 year old kayaker was just killed by a jetskier. 
 

It is one of the most dangerous activities to do out on the water.  
 

Hines assumed these risks and shares in the negligence. 

 

Sure, there is inherently "some" risk with riding a jet ski as there is some risk in everything we do. 1000 accidents in a year across the ENTIRE USA actually proves it's not a very dangerous activity at all.

 

In the example you pointed out, a kayaker was killed by a jetski. So would you then say kayaking is a high risk activity? If a Bills player was sitting in a stationary car at a stop light and got blindsided by a drunk driver, would you say he shouldn't have been driving and oh well it's his fault for getting behind the wheel?

 

He himself was being safe, he just got screwed by some idiot doing something stupid.

Edited September 8, 2023 by CheshireCT

[CheshireCT]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Every activity has inherited risks. Kayaking is a medium risk made into a much larger risk by sharing water with jetski. Bills player at light, where and what time? Regardless yes, driving a car is high risk and professional athletes should have their own drivers. 

 

geez, under this philosophy, they shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom without a supervision team.

[T master]

Can't say as i can blame him ! I do have a question though will he be getting paid any of his money in his contract for this season ? How does that work ?

 

I know usually they get game checks but don't get paid in the off season but have often wondered as far as injuries go if they still get paid . Mika Hyde last season did he get paid after his injury last year ? & Tommy Doyle he's been hurt 2 seasons in a row now surely they can't just not pay them can they ?

[Punching Bag]

23 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

"Knock it off with that 'public pressure' crap, or we'll call your bluff and you won't get a dime."

 

But on the note of Hines being partially responsible, I kind of see where the unpopular opinion is coming from.  Of course he is right to sue and should get every dime he legally can, but it's still stupid for a professional athlete to be engaging in such an inherently dangerous activity.  It's akin to buying a lottery ticket with the prize of pain and suffering, and losing a livelihood worth literally millions of dollars.  No reason to become a recluse in bubble wrap, but maybe stay off the jet skis, motorcycles, etc.  There's a reason these activities are often banned in contracts.

 

No need with Bills contracts.  Bills still have Jim Overdorf (Senior Advisor to GM/Football Operations).

[wettlaufer]

7 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

You sure about that?  

No. I am speculating on a message board on a planet spinning through space at 25,000 feet per second.

[Richard Noggin]

8 hours ago, CheshireCT said:

My family owned a jetski when I was growing up and I rode it all summer around Lake Ontario starting at age 12. I continued to ride it like crazy every summer until I was out of high school. I never hit anyone or came close to any accidents. Nor did I ever feel unsafe or did my parents think so. I wouldn't consider it a dangerous activity whatsoever. I don't have statistics, but I would say jet-skiing is probably safer than driving a car. Whoever hit him was really really stupid.

 

I mean, your anecdotal evidence of riding a jet ski on a gigantic and lightly populated body of water during the several months a year when that's fun is...not super pertinent. I've ridden jet skis in places where there is some significant congestion (Merritt Island causeway on "Space Coast" of Florida, handful of lakes in north and central Texas, and a couple lesser Finger Lakes)...and the risk of something going quickly wrong for someone is pretty apparent. It is only POSSIBLY safer on a jet-ski than in a car due to the lopsided scale of how often we're in cars societally. So each of us is more likely to be injured in a car because of the exponentially greater EXPOSURE to those risks. It's NOT safer on a level playing field of factors AT ALL. Automobiles, at least, protect our bodies. Jet-skis do not, of course. 

 

Hell, my best friend's stepdad (when we were in high school) was jet skiing on the Niagara River when his own biological son crashed into him from the side (kinda like what Hines experienced). His leg got fully severed around the knee and he bled out and died, just like that. Riding ON a powerful motorized vehicle is inherently dangerous. Riding IN a motorized vehicle is also very dangerous, but at least your ACTUAL BODY doesn't get crashed directly into the way it does on a bike, motorcycle, jet ski, etc. The vehicle can bear enough of the brunt to keep you mostly safe in most scenarios. 

[CheshireCT]

7 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

I mean, your anecdotal evidence of riding a jet ski on a gigantic and lightly populated body of water during the several months a year when that's fun is...not super pertinent. I've ridden jet skis in places where there is some significant congestion (Merritt Island causeway on "Space Coast" of Florida, handful of lakes in north and central Texas, and a couple lesser Finger Lakes)...and the risk of something going quickly wrong for someone is pretty apparent. It is only POSSIBLY safer on a jet-ski than in a car due to the lopsided scale of how often we're in cars societally. So each of us is more likely to be injured in a car because of the exponentially greater EXPOSURE to those risks. It's NOT safer on a level playing field of factors AT ALL. Automobiles, at least, protect our bodies. Jet-skis do not, of course. 

 

Hell, my best friend's stepdad (when we were in high school) was jet skiing on the Niagara River when his own biological son crashed into him from the side (kinda like what Hines experienced). His leg got fully severed around the knee and he bled out and died, just like that. Riding ON a powerful motorized vehicle is inherently dangerous. Riding IN a motorized vehicle is also very dangerous, but at least your ACTUAL BODY doesn't get crashed directly into the way it does on a bike, motorcycle, jet ski, etc. The vehicle can bear enough of the brunt to keep you mostly safe in most scenarios. 

That’s a horrific accident and I’m really sorry for that family. You certainly make good points that context makes a big difference. Confined water spaces combined with inexperienced or aggressive or stupid operators can create safety hazards. I probably wouldn’t jet ski in such places myself. Better to stick to open water!
 

I still maintain however that jet-skiing in itself is not an inherently dangerous activity. Safety on the water is primarily about remaining alert. Paying attention to the other water crafts and staying away from them.  When it comes to physical safety I’m probably the most cautious and risk averse person I know, lol. If I had the financial means and place to ride one, I would have a jet ski again in a second. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by CheshireCT

[ColoradoBills]

On 9/8/2023 at 7:45 AM, k2mountain said:

My umbrella covers me for one million, for a whopping $86 a year. It's a no brainer.

 

Agree.. no way Mr. Jetski has anywhere near $4.5 mil in coverage.

 

Coverage: the way the agent described it to me "You are covered for anything you are found liable for." That can be anything, anywhere. Jetski, someone slipping on icy sidewalk, slander/libel... the list goes on.

 

I have an umbrella policy too and that is what they are for.  It's also not mandatory that you own a home or auto.

Plenty of wealthy people in NYC renting and not owning a car have umbrella policies.

[mannc]

17 hours ago, T master said:

Can't say as i can blame him ! I do have a question though will he be getting paid any of his money in his contract for this season ? How does that work ?

 

I know usually they get game checks but don't get paid in the off season but have often wondered as far as injuries go if they still get paid . Mika Hyde last season did he get paid after his injury last year ? & Tommy Doyle he's been hurt 2 seasons in a row now surely they can't just not pay them can they ?

It is my understanding that because Hines suffered a “non-football injury”, the Bills have the right to terminate his contract and pay him nothing.  Whether they have exercised that right is a different matter.  I have not heard, one way or the other.

18 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

Hines assumed these risks and shares in the negligence. 

Sorry, that is not how it works.

[mannc]

22 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Yes this is how it works.  If he was moving, they’ll share in liability. Not 50/50, More like 70/30. 

 There is no such rule anywhere.

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[mannc]

27 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Please do some research on comparative negligence jurisdiction and report back.

There is no need.  If Hines was not negligent then there would be no reduction.  The fact that he was moving (if in fact he was) would not automatically make him negligent. Period.

[Doc]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:53 AM, Mr. WEO said:

There's no chance this poor sap has any such policy that would cover a year of Hines's lost salary.

 

28 million drivers don't even have car insurance.   44 million rent their home/apartment only 55% have renters insurance.

 

10% of Americans have umbrella insurance.  20% of those with net worth of greater than 5 million have no umbrella insurance.  25% of those who do have less than 5 million in coverage.  

 

But maybe this dude is a "2%er" high net worth individual who has an umbrella policy over 5 million.  He might just be that 0.4% of individuals in this country!  Pay up bro!

 

So what?  You still sue to get whatever you can.

[Xwnyer]

I still wonder how he got on the jet ski sitting in middle of lake

[mannc]

57 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Please educate yourself. Researching is essential to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information. 

You have zero—and I mean zero—idea what you’re talking about.

[Mr. WEO]

50 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So what?  You still sue to get whatever you can.

 

why not include the rental company then?

[Doc]

44 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

why not include the rental company then?

 

Because they have forms you sign absolving them of responsibility for an accident caused solely by the actions of the renter. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc

[Doctor Duck]

On 9/7/2023 at 4:53 PM, julian said:

If the person was operating under the influence then yes suing seems appropriate but if they weren’t, that’s an unfortunate accident.

 

 You assume risk with you ur actions everyday and some dude who loses control of a jet ski seems like an accident, in fairness it wasn’t me getting my knees twisted the opposite direction and if so I may feel differently.

Bulloney...sure DUI will add to someone's chance of not paying attention to what they are doing, but it's not a prerequisite for irresponsibility. You could be driving (or skiing) too fast to respond in time, distracted by your phone, whatever. Point is you weren't paying attention and you caused the accident booze or no booze. Every accident I caused in my 20's (before I wised up) was because I was rushing around too damn fast for the road conditions. No booze involved ever and yes it was my own damn fault.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Pretty sure this is what insurance is for…that’s a much deeper pocket than whoever the named defendant is, I’d wager. Imho, our society at large is too litigious (sometimes unavoidable), and many times disputes could be handled more cheaply and quickly by pre-lit dispute resolution means.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Because they have forms you sign absolving them of responsibility for an accident caused solely by the actions of the renter. 

 

maybe the other guy was obviously intoxicated.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Maybe the other guy was obviously intoxicated.

 

Obviously there is no proof he was when he signed the forms.  Otherwise they would also have been sued.  I seriously doubt this was an oversight by Hines' attorney.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Obviously there is no proof he was when he signed the forms.  Otherwise they would also have been sued.  I seriously doubt this was an oversight by Hines' attorney.

 

Well, no one has been sued yet.

 

Also, you missed this, from the report earlier this week:

 

“Nyheim, who has his boating license and was likely traveling at about 10 miles per hour was not cited and has engaged my office to hold the necessary parties accountable for ending his season and costing him potentially many millions of dollars.  Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so are questions my office will be looking into very closely in the coming weeks. I look forward to doing everything I can to put the pieces back together for Nyheim, who is a terrific person and client.”.....

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Well, no one has been sued yet.

 

Also, you missed this, from the report earlier this week:

 

“Nyheim, who has his boating license and was likely traveling at about 10 miles per hour was not cited and has engaged my office to hold the necessary parties accountable for ending his season and costing him potentially many millions of dollars.  Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so are questions my office will be looking into very closely in the coming weeks. I look forward to doing everything I can to put the pieces back together for Nyheim, who is a terrific person and client.”.....

 

So "no one has been sued yet" and you caught that "earlier in the week" and you still asked why the rental company hasn't been sued?

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So "no one has been sued yet" and you read that "earlier in the week" and you still asked why the rental company hasn't been sued?

 

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[Beck Water]

23 hours ago, T master said:

Can't say as i can blame him ! I do have a question though will he be getting paid any of his money in his contract for this season ? How does that work ?

 

I know usually they get game checks but don't get paid in the off season but have often wondered as far as injuries go if they still get paid . Mika Hyde last season did he get paid after his injury last year ? & Tommy Doyle he's been hurt 2 seasons in a row now surely they can't just not pay them can they ?

 

So, that requires a bit of sorting.

 

First sort:

Is it classed as a "football injury" or a "non-football injury"?

Football injury = working out at team facility in the off-season, OTAs, preseason; training camp, games

Non-football injury = anything else (including injuries from working out to prepare for the season

 

For a non-football injury, the team is not required to pay the player his salary and per game roster bonuses.  They can choose to.  He keeps his signing and/or restructure bonuses.

 

Second sort:

If it's a football injury, does the player have a "split" in his contract that specifies that he will be paid a lower amount if he is placed on IR?

Of our 4 players on IR, Doyle apparently does NOT have a split and is getting paid full salary; Shorter, Spector, and Davidson have splits.

 

But to answer your last question: no, they can't just "not pay them".  Neither can they release an injured player, UNLESS they reach a settlement to pay the player for the # of weeks the injury rehab is supposed to take.

 

 

[mannc]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

In a case like this, where the damages are well into 7 figures, the idea is to sue (or threaten to sue) as many potentially responsible parties as possible, which has the effect of bringing more insurance carriers to the table.  The more carriers there are, the more likely it is that there will be enough money to pay your client's damages.  So yeah, it seems pretty likely that whoever rented to the guy who hit Hines will be brought in, regardless what sort of waiver Hines might have signed. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[Beck Water]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:20 PM, Mr. WEO said:

I guess it depends on your policy and where.  One law firm site said it would cover what specific insurance didn’t but you had to exhaust the payout of that specific policy—it included PWC along with auto and home. 
 

multiple other sites said it would exclude liability claims on jet skis over 50hp. 
 

Another poster said typical homeowners (not umbrella) covers over a million in liability.

I doubt any mandatory liability insurance a rental company requires (if at all) a renter to pay would cover more than a couple hundred thousand. 
 

anyway, my initial post said this guy doesn’t have 4.5 million for the taking l—including any assets or insurance. 
 

im standing by that as a sage assumption

 

 

$4.5M for the taking - I'd go with "you're right" on that.

 

But a guy who is suing, takes what he can get

 

Hines was due $2.56M from the Bills this season, $1M of which was guaranteed (likely for 'injury, skill, and cap').  Initially there was some back and forth that the Bills had offered Hines $370k, which is the max a player on the practice squad can receive.  His agent of course, wanted his full salary (which the team can choose to pay).

 

Let's say they settled on covering the guaranteed portion of his salary.

 

In this hypothetical scenario, Hines has got $1.56M of lost salary to make up.  So if he can get that out of some combination of the renter dude and the rental company and who knows, maybe the jetski manufacturer, still worth suing.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Beck Water

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

 

On what grounds?  You brought up intoxication but there's no evidence that was the case.  And even if he were drunk when he hit Hines, they'd have to prove he was drunk when he signed the forms.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

$4.5M for the taking - I'd go with "you're right" on that.

 

But a guy who is suing, takes what he can get

 

Hines was due $2.56M from the Bills this season, $1M of which was guaranteed (likely for 'injury, skill, and cap').  Initially there was some back and forth that the Bills had offered Hines $370k, which is the max a player on the practice squad can receive.  His agent of course, wanted his full salary (which the team can choose to pay).

 

Let's say they settled on covering the guaranteed portion of his salary.

 

In this hypothetical scenario, Hines has got $1.56M of lost salary to make up.  So if he can get that out of some combination of the renter dude and the rental company and who knows, maybe the jetski manufacturer, still worth suing.

 

No one here seems to disagree with that.  My original point was that he was the only one being discussed and there is almost no chance he could cover what Hines was due on the roster this year.

 

Per PFT:

 

"

Earlier this year, Hines signed a revised contract that replaced the deal he signed with the Colts in 2021. The two-year, $9 million deal included a $1 million signing bonus, a $100,000 workout bonus for 2023, a base salary of $2.56 million for 2023, and $340,000 in per-game roster bonuses.

Hines has received $600,000 of his signing bonus. The Bills, per multiple sources, have proposed withholding the $400,000 installment due later this year, along with the $100,000 workout bonus that Hines earned in the offseason. That would represent reimbursement of half of the signing bonus covering the two-year contract.

The Bills also are willing to pay Hines $289,000 in 2023, which matches the highest amount that can be paid to a practice-squad player."

 

I don't see the Bills offering him his full salary for this accident.  Why would they? He placed the contract in jeopardy when he got on a jet ski.  

 

That's why I brought up the other guy's rental company (or pretty much anyone else).  

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

On what grounds?  You brought up intoxication but there's no evidence that was the case.  And even if he were drunk when he hit Hines, they'd have to prove he was drunk when he signed the forms.

 

 

 

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

 

Could be (and most likely is) nothing or could be something.  I trust what a lawyer says about as far as I can thrown one.

[mannc]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No one here seems to disagree with that.  My original point was that he was the only one being discussed and there is almost no chance he could cover what Hines was due on the roster this year.

 

Per PFT:

 

"

Earlier this year, Hines signed a revised contract that replaced the deal he signed with the Colts in 2021. The two-year, $9 million deal included a $1 million signing bonus, a $100,000 workout bonus for 2023, a base salary of $2.56 million for 2023, and $340,000 in per-game roster bonuses.

Hines has received $600,000 of his signing bonus. The Bills, per multiple sources, have proposed withholding the $400,000 installment due later this year, along with the $100,000 workout bonus that Hines earned in the offseason. That would represent reimbursement of half of the signing bonus covering the two-year contract.

The Bills also are willing to pay Hines $289,000 in 2023, which matches the highest amount that can be paid to a practice-squad player."

 

I don't see the Bills offering him his full salary for this accident.  Why would they? He placed the contract in jeopardy when he got on a jet ski.  

 

That's why I brought up the other guy's rental company (or pretty much anyone else).  

 

 

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

Yeah, there are lots of potential avenues for holding the rental company liable...the guy could have been visibly intoxicated, he could have brought alcohol onto the jetski, he might not have had a valid drivers license, which most of these places require, or he might not have taken a boater safety course, which is required in some states to rent a jetski.   

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Could be (and most likely is) nothing or could be something.  I trust what a lawyer says about as far as I can thrown one.

 

that's immaterial to this discussion.  

 

he's not just suing the jet ski bro.  he's going after his rental company, as I posited earlier.

Just now, mannc said:

Yeah, there are lots of potential avenues for holding the rental company liable...the guy could have been visibly intoxicated, he could have brought alcohol onto the jetski, he might not have had a valid drivers license, which most of these places require, or he might not have had taken a boater safety course, which is required in some states to rent a jetski.   

 

yup.  has to be something there

[BobbyC81]

On 9/7/2023 at 4:43 PM, BillsFanForever19 said:

Interesting nothing came of this on the Bills side. From the sounds of his agents tweets, it seemed like for a time we were going to let him go. But that never happened. Wonder if he's still being paid and what the plan is going forward.

Yeah, I wouldn’t believe the Bills fell for the “I was just sitting on it.”   How’d you get out there?

[Meatloaf63]

On 9/7/2023 at 8:55 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

for what?

Rental property is one thing.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

that's immaterial to this discussion.  

 

he's not just suing the jet ski bro.  he's going after his rental company, as I posited earlier.

 

No, the lawyer's words are immaterial.  They'll make you believe that the other guy is the devil and drink's babies' blood.  And they usually talk more the less they have.  I'll wait to see what he's got.  You would be wise to do the same.

[Mr. WEO]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, the lawyer's words are immaterial.  They'll make you believe that the other guy is the devil and drink's babies' blood.  And they usually talk more the less they have.  I'll wait to see what he's got.  You would be wise to do the same.

you already concluded he has nothing, so what is it you are now waiting for? 
 

in your business, there is not a minuscule chance you will need a good lawyer before you retire. 
 

how did they hurt you?

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

you already concluded he has nothing, so what is it you are now waiting for? 
 

in your business, there is not a minuscule chance you will need a good lawyer before you retire. 
 

how did they hurt you?

 

How have lawyers hurt medicine?  LOL! 

 

Anyway...I might need a good lawyer before I retire.  Haven't needed one yet.  But I know how they work.  A year ago Araiza was a statutory and gang rapist.  A year later...