$44,000 Slap Shot

[coryroth24 15]

Didn't see anyone else mention this. If they have, go ahead and delete, but I thought this was rather interesting...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009...11.html?ref=rss

[henkka 0]

:lol: that is just ridiculous :lol:

how did they come up with that kind of demands, and no insurances?

[interpathway 9]

Wow. Smart words from the Judge though.

[cptjeff 0]

Countersue because the kid was out there with no cage or mouthguard.

Wear protection out there or suck it up when something happens. It's not prudent to fire a slapshot when there's anybody in front of the net, but if you're out there at any sort of open hockey you have to wear protection. I'm not liable for your stupidity.

Edit: Just read further into this:

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2009/...009qccs297.html

In french, but Google can translate.

Basically, there were two rinks- a small one and a large one. The small one is used mainly for skating, the large one for hockey. The 9 year old should have been on the small one, but it was too bumpy, so he and his friend went on the big rink. None of the kids in question were even wearing helmets, much less cages.

The court finds that this is 2/3 the fault of the guy taking the slapshot and only 1/3 of the idiot kid who knows he's on the wrong rink, has no helmet or protection whatsoever when he's on a rink there he is half the size of anyone there and people are practicing hockey. Wow. Just wow.

[eric42434224 1]

It doesent matter which rink. If there are children with no head or facial protection even close to your vinicinity, regardless if they should be there or not, you should not be taking slapshots. That is simply excercising reasonable care to not injure others.

What is disturbing is that they asked for 72 f-ing grand for 3 teeth?

Cmon. I had a six tooth bridge done for 6k. Even if they were three implants.....start to finish we are talking 10k......15k max.

[cptjeff 0]

It doesent matter which rink. If there are children with no head or facial protection even close to your vinicinity, regardless if they should be there or not, you should not be taking slapshots. That is simply excercising reasonable care to not injure others.

What is disturbing is that they asked for 72 f-ing grand for 3 teeth?

Cmon. I had a six tooth bridge done for 6k. Even if they were three implants.....start to finish we are talking 10k......15k max.

It does matter which rink. When there are two, with boards so that pucks cannot fly from one to the other, and the little kid is supposed to be on the one with the kids his age who don't have strong enough shots to seriously hurt him even if he isn't wearing a helmet. The Small rink you weren't even allowed to shoot, just pass. The big rink was basically a permanent stick and puck intended for older kids. It was not a public skating rink, slapshots and such are going to be common and expected.

On that basis alone, helmet or no, facial protection or no, the little kid and his parents are at fault. It's the parents responsibility to make sure their kid is playing on the safe rink or wearing a helmet with a full cage if he goes on with kids twice his size and age practicing hockey. It is not the responsibility of a random stranger using the rink's facilities as they're designed to be used. Yeah it's dumb and a pretty irresponsible, but in the end, it's his own damn fault. It may be an old fashioned attitude, but you have to take responsibility for your own actions and choices. The big rink is inherently unsafe for little kids. The parents should have known that and kept him off of it. The responsibility lies there.

But here's the breakdown of costs:

1) System for maintaining scalable, fixed partial denture implants and partial-span: $ 40, 375.00

2) Disfigurement: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... $ 10, 000.00

3) Troubles, problems and disadvantages (the Kid can't talk quite right, ect.) 20K.

4) Ambulance $214.07

5. Orthodontic fees $160

6. Prosthodontics costs $80

7. Expenses $313.36

8. Loss of Vacation Period: $410

Total: $71,562.43

Actually makes some sense, given that it is a 9 year old kid you have to build something that will be able to adjust and grow as he ages. It is still a bit much.

[Ahriman 1]

It doesent matter which rink. If there are children with no head or facial protection even close to your vinicinity, regardless if they should be there or not, you should not be taking slapshots. That is simply excercising reasonable care to not injure others.

What is disturbing is that they asked for 72 f-ing grand for 3 teeth?

Cmon. I had a six tooth bridge done for 6k. Even if they were three implants.....start to finish we are talking 10k......15k max.

"pain and suffering" can be defined by a large sum of monetary compensation, besides, all that stuff is expensive.

edit: look at that, beaten to the itemization already....

[eric42434224 1]

Yes, the cost is more when taking into consideration the fact that the child will still grow, and will continue to need adjustments and care. I agree with that.

But liability still lies with the older kid. What you dont understand is that it doesnt matter if the kid was on the wrong rink...at least it matters less than the older kids responsibility for his actions. Regardless of the fact that the younger kid was on one rink or the other, the kid shooting has to be responsible and take care where he shoots the puck. Would it matter if he hit another older who was also practicing shots and was allowed on that rink? No. The circumstances surrounding 'why" the other kid was there does not mitigate the responsibility to take care in shooting the puck.

Think of it like this:

You rear-end me in a car accident. It is determined to clearly be your fault. But you find out that I had a suspended license. You feel that you shoudnt pay damages because I "shouldnt" have been driving? Unfortunately the Law doesnt agree with that. I will still be ticketed for driving without a license, but you are still liable for your failure to control your car.

Yes, maybe the kid shouldnt have been on the big rink....but that does not relieve the older kid of the responsibility to take reasonable care in his actions. With your viewpoint, the older kid takes no responsibility. "Hey look...that kid is coming on this rink when he shouldnt be....lets take slapshots at his head....it wont be our fault because he isnt supposed to be here!"

That is just wrong whether by the law, or just with common sense.

The judge was probably fully within his rights to have the older kid pay everything, but didnt because he wanted to allow for some shared responsibility in the interests of justice and equity.

[cptjeff 0]

Yes, the cost is more when taking into consideration the fact that the child will still grow, and will continue to need adjustments and care. I agree with that.

But liability still lies with the older kid. What you dont understand is that it doesnt matter if the kid was on the wrong rink...at least it matters less than the older kids responsibility for his actions. Regardless of the fact that the younger kid was on one rink or the other, the kid shooting has to be responsible and take care where he shoots the puck. Would it matter if he hit another older who was also practicing shots and was allowed on that rink? No. The circumstances surrounding 'why" the other kid was there does not mitigate the responsibility to take care in shooting the puck.

Think of it like this:

You rear-end me in a car accident. It is determined to clearly be your fault. But you find out that I had a suspended license. You feel that you shoudnt pay damages because I "shouldnt" have been driving? Unfortunately the Law doesnt agree with that. I will still be ticketed for driving without a license, but you are still liable for your failure to control your car.

Yes, maybe the kid shouldnt have been on the big rink....but that does not relieve the older kid of the responsibility to take reasonable care in his actions. With your viewpoint, the older kid takes no responsibility. "Hey look...that kid is coming on this rink when he shouldnt be....lets take slapshots at his head....it wont be our fault because he isnt supposed to be here!"

That is just wrong whether by the law, or just with common sense.

The judge was probably fully within his rights to have the older kid pay everything, but didnt because he wanted to allow for some shared responsibility in the interests of justice and equity.

A different example would be you deciding to go rock climbing. Thing is, you decide not to use a rope or wear a helmet, and because one wall had a silly color you went on a rock wall that was much more difficult then you could handle. You fall and crack your head. It's your own damn fault.

Thing is, if it's not the slapshot from the other kid it's a deflected puck, or somebody shooting against the boards and the puck bouncing funny... Yeah taking a slapshot is stupid, but We don't know how far off the slapshot was. The little kid could have been in the corner and a puck goes off the post.

The thing is, when you're at the height of a rising puck from an adult shot on a rink full of adults, you're probably going to get hit by something and a hit to the head is pretty likely. It's not your job to keep track of everyone on the ice and to make sure they're safe. Your responsibility is to make sure you don't fire a puck right at him intentionally.

Reading the case again, There was a slapshot drill in progress and the 9 year old went to the front of the net while it was in progress. I'm sorry, but If I'm shooting through a line of pucks I'm focusing on my shot and presuming nobody is stupid enough to skate in front of them.

Add to that, that apparently it wasn't the first time the little kids went to the front of the net. The kid who's slapshot wound up hitting the idiot apparently went to the rink supervisor to get the same group to stop going to the front of the net while he was practicing his slapshots.

What more do you want him to do? Build a wall so the kids can't go to the front of the net while he's looking down at the puck?

[fieldofdreams 0]

"Hey look...that kid is coming on this rink when he shouldnt be....lets take slapshots at his head....it wont be our fault because he isnt supposed to be here!"

That is just wrong whether by the law, or just with common sense.

Enough with the over the top theatrics. I would be willing to risk my life that the above thought never crossed the bigger kids mind. All he wanted to do was practice his shot, and one got away.

I DO agree that he should have shown some restraint when the younger kid was in the vicinity, but the parents of the younger kid hold just as much, if not more in my opinion, responsibility in this matter.

[eric42434224 1]

"Hey look...that kid is coming on this rink when he shouldnt be....lets take slapshots at his head....it wont be our fault because he isnt supposed to be here!"

That is just wrong whether by the law, or just with common sense.

Enough with the over the top theatrics. I would be willing to risk my life that the above thought never crossed the bigger kids mind. All he wanted to do was practice his shot, and one got away.

I DO agree that he should have shown some restraint when the younger kid was in the vicinity, but the parents of the younger kid hold just as much, if not more in my opinion, responsibility in this matter.

You misunderstood my over the top comment. I was just illustrating the sillyness of the above poster claiming the shooter had no liability. It was not meant to be serious, nor did I assert the older kid ever had those thoughts.

Yes, the cost is more when taking into consideration the fact that the child will still grow, and will continue to need adjustments and care. I agree with that.

But liability still lies with the older kid. What you dont understand is that it doesnt matter if the kid was on the wrong rink...at least it matters less than the older kids responsibility for his actions. Regardless of the fact that the younger kid was on one rink or the other, the kid shooting has to be responsible and take care where he shoots the puck. Would it matter if he hit another older who was also practicing shots and was allowed on that rink? No. The circumstances surrounding 'why" the other kid was there does not mitigate the responsibility to take care in shooting the puck.

Think of it like this:

You rear-end me in a car accident. It is determined to clearly be your fault. But you find out that I had a suspended license. You feel that you shoudnt pay damages because I "shouldnt" have been driving? Unfortunately the Law doesnt agree with that. I will still be ticketed for driving without a license, but you are still liable for your failure to control your car.

Yes, maybe the kid shouldnt have been on the big rink....but that does not relieve the older kid of the responsibility to take reasonable care in his actions. With your viewpoint, the older kid takes no responsibility. "Hey look...that kid is coming on this rink when he shouldnt be....lets take slapshots at his head....it wont be our fault because he isnt supposed to be here!"

That is just wrong whether by the law, or just with common sense.

The judge was probably fully within his rights to have the older kid pay everything, but didnt because he wanted to allow for some shared responsibility in the interests of justice and equity.

A different example would be you deciding to go rock climbing. Thing is, you decide not to use a rope or wear a helmet, and because one wall had a silly color you went on a rock wall that was much more difficult then you could handle. You fall and crack your head. It's your own damn fault.

Thing is, if it's not the slapshot from the other kid it's a deflected puck, or somebody shooting against the boards and the puck bouncing funny... Yeah taking a slapshot is stupid, but We don't know how far off the slapshot was. The little kid could have been in the corner and a puck goes off the post.

The thing is, when you're at the height of a rising puck from an adult shot on a rink full of adults, you're probably going to get hit by something and a hit to the head is pretty likely. It's not your job to keep track of everyone on the ice and to make sure they're safe. Your responsibility is to make sure you don't fire a puck right at him intentionally.

Reading the case again, There was a slapshot drill in progress and the 9 year old went to the front of the net while it was in progress. I'm sorry, but If I'm shooting through a line of pucks I'm focusing on my shot and presuming nobody is stupid enough to skate in front of them.

Add to that, that apparently it wasn't the first time the little kids went to the front of the net. The kid who's slapshot wound up hitting the idiot apparently went to the rink supervisor to get the same group to stop going to the front of the net while he was practicing his slapshots.

What more do you want him to do? Build a wall so the kids can't go to the front of the net while he's looking down at the puck?

You just dont get it. It is extremely clear the older kid was, at least, partially liable. You can rant that he wasnt, but it is abundantly clear he was. I dont think I can explain it with anymore simplicity or logic than I did, so I dont think I can add anymore to this thread....it will be a waste of time.

:)

[dcdot377 0]

where was the little kids parent(s) when this happened? why wasnt this little kid wearing a helmet and cage? isnt this kids parents a little irresponsible for allowing this kid to skate without proper protection with kids much older and bigger?

[eric42434224 1]

where was the little kids parent(s) when this happened? why wasnt this little kid wearing a helmet and cage? isnt this kids parents a little irresponsible for allowing this kid to skate without proper protection with kids much older and bigger?

The little kids parents were found to be 1/3 liable.

[Chadd 916]

I've played open hockey that has a minimum age of 18 and seen little kids on the ice. I've also had parents get pissed because I've taken slap shots while their kid was on the ice during a pickup game. In those cases, the kids were hidden behind larger players. I never saw them before taking the shot. I have above average on-ice awareness (to go along with my below average skating) and there are times where you just can't see the kids. If the little kid chose to go on the ice knowing that people were playing hockey or practicing hockey skills (and his parents did not prevent it) the responsibility it on him (and them) not on the people participating in the "normal" activities on that sheet of ice. Assuming the teen did not shoot at the little guy intentionally (and I haven't seen anything indicating that) this is a disturbing ruling.

It's certainly a case of one not being help responsible for their own actions when they are clearly at fault. 20 years ago this was an accident, now it's a court case. That alone is sickening, disturbing and should scare the hell out of anyone.

My theory is this:

1. Little kids don't belong out there with adults or teenagers

2. Little kids should never be on the ice without a helmet or cage, hockey or public skating

where was the little kids parent(s) when this happened? why wasnt this little kid wearing a helmet and cage? isnt this kids parents a little irresponsible for allowing this kid to skate without proper protection with kids much older and bigger?

The little kids parents were found to be 1/3 liable.

And that 1/3 is still less than the cash given for "disfigurement" and "troubles, problems and disadvantages". Since they padded the suit enough, there is no hard cost to the parents of the kid who got hurt.

[DevilsFan38 0]

I've played open hockey that has a minimum age of 18 and seen little kids on the ice. I've also had parents get pissed because I've taken slap shots while their kid was on the ice during a pickup game. In those cases, the kids were hidden behind larger players. I never saw them before taking the shot. I have above average on-ice awareness (to go along with my below average skating) and there are times where you just can't see the kids. If the little kid chose to go on the ice knowing that people were playing hockey or practicing hockey skills (and his parents did not prevent it) the responsibility it on him (and them) not on the people participating in the "normal" activities on that sheet of ice. Assuming the teen did not shoot at the little guy intentionally (and I haven't seen anything indicating that) this is a disturbing ruling.

It's certainly a case of one not being help responsible for their own actions when they are clearly at fault. 20 years ago this was an accident, now it's a court case. That alone is sickening, disturbing and should scare the hell out of anyone.

My theory is this:

1. Little kids don't belong out there with adults or teenagers

2. Little kids should never be on the ice without a helmet or cage, hockey or public skating

And that 1/3 is still less than the cash given for "disfigurement" and "troubles, problems and disadvantages". Since they padded the suit enough, there is no hard cost to the parents of the kid who got hurt.

Agreed. There is no personal responsibility anymore. Something bad happens to you - find someone to blame it on and sue them. The scary part is that judges/juries are siding with these idiots.

I've only read what's written in this thread, but to me it sounds like this is about 95-100% the fault of the parents and the 9 year old.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I don't know a great deal about Canadian tort law, but in the US we have a legal prinicpal of assumed risk, which means that if you know a risk exists and expose yourself to it any way no one else is responsible for what happens to you. Quite simply in this case the parents are responsible for not taking reasonable actions to protect their 9 year old. The 15 year old did exercise reasonable care in ensuring his actions weren't harmful by going to a rink whose sole purpose is use for playing the sport of ice hockey. If he were taking slappers from his drive way and hit a kid on rollar blades it would be a totally different matter. However, he was on a rink designed for the reason he was there, that is legally exercising due caution. The 9 year old and his parents were aware that the child was on a rink where hockey was being played and took no precaution. In fact I would bet money that the rink requires helmets on the hockey rink and they were probably knowingly violating the policy. No one from an elite NHL play to a causal rec player has 100 percent control of their shots, getting hit with a puck is simply an assumed risk you take when you step on a hockey rink. Just like you know that a collision with another play, whether accidental or intentional, is a risk of playing on a hockey rink and thus you cannot sue for something that you understood to be a risk and assumed any way.

As for the amounts of money demanded, these things are mostly comestic in nature. You can lead a perfectly normal life missing three teeth. If the parents don't like the look of it they can pay for expensive materials whose ulimate purpose is comestic in nature.

[lefty57 0]

Agreed. There is no personal responsibility anymore. Something bad happens to you - find someone to blame it on and sue them. The scary part is that judges/juries are siding with these idiots.

Blame Stella Liebeck for this ... she's the one who sued Micky D's for the hot cup of coffee in the drive-thru.

[cptjeff 0]

Agreed. There is no personal responsibility anymore. Something bad happens to you - find someone to blame it on and sue them. The scary part is that judges/juries are siding with these idiots.

Blame Stella Liebeck for this ... she's the one who sued Micky D's for the hot cup of coffee in the drive-thru.

People always cite that one, but at the time McDonalds kept their coffee Hot enough that it could scald you if you touched it. It was much hotter then normal places kept theirs. If you look at all the facts in that one, it's a lot more reasonable. She spilled the coffee and got second degree burns. They dialed down the temperature as part of that decision, but it's still way too hot to drink when you first get it.

[pantherfan 0]

Not to go too off-topic but I did some Googling when that name was initially dropped and found this.

The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

It also goes on to say the McD's coffee is served at around 180-190. BS call if you ask me.

[cptjeff 0]

Not to go too off-topic but I did some Googling when that name was initially dropped and found this.

The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

It also goes on to say the McD's coffee is served at around 180-190. BS call if you ask me.

Brewed at about 200 degrees and drunk immediately? I'd like to see somebody pull that trick. You do that and your tongue won't work right for days. I've done that, it's not pleasant. And the part you don't mention from that is that liquids at that temperature can cause third degree burns and this women had to have skin grafts- worse then I remembered it.

So coffee is supposed to be brewed that hot to optimize flavor. But it's quite hazardous to handle a liquid that hot, and quite hazardous to drink it that hot.

Third Degree burns are not something to be taken lightly. The only thing worse is 4th degree- which is when your muscle and even possibly bone is burned. 3rd degree means your skin can effectively be destroyed.