more than a cheap shot

[cch 0]

I wanted to share this to get some opinions on the repercussions of the event and to maybe give fellow hockey players a little extra thought before they do some thing because you never know what consequences our actions may have.

Little backround first- I'm 23 have been playing hockey since I was 5 and have never loved anything more, during highschool I suffered from several concussions, 6 total, but I have continued to play in mens league's that were no check with out incident.

Last week I was playing in my league game and was blind sided by some guy who hit me with his helmet right into my cage and totally cleaned me out,( I don't react well to getting hit in the head which is a problem in its self) so I look around at the refs and see there is no call so I skate up the ice give him a nice cross check to the back and some lip service. He then gets the puck on the boards and I stick him with my shoulder, the ref puts his arm up to call me, the whistle blowing soon after. So I start asking him why he didn't call the original hit and some other guy on the other team just pummels me in the side of the head with a strong right while I am yelling at the ref. I go down like a ton of bricks and this guy takes of his helmet and stands over me like he wants to fight (so I was told). I go the locker room and start to throw up, meanwhile the league president was there and saw the whole thing and called the cops. So they bring the whole deal, like 6 cops and an ambulance. The EMT's were very adamant I go to the hospital so I did reluctantly because I have no health insurance. Due to my past concussions the doctor wanted me to get a CAT scan which is going to cost me even more.

WTF- My mom goes to pick up the police report and turns out this guy lives on my street, like three houses down from me and is 42 with three kids.

After doing a little research a CAT scan is about $1500, an ambulence ride is about $600, and just being in the ER was probably about $200. That"s an approximate total of $2,300.

So I know this was in a hockey game but should I sue this guy? I do not have $2300 dollars first of all as I just finished college and am saving up for an apartment in Boston in September.

One funny part- my buddy told me afterward- he got kicked out because he broke the guys stick and fired his helmet into the stands.9

3

[uclahockey707 1]

Im no legal expert man, so I can't comment on the suing part, but thats a pretty rough story. Best of luck with everything

[kovyperron5727 0]

Im no legal expert man, so I can't comment on the suing part, but thats a pretty rough story. Best of luck with everything

Pretty much what I was going to say. Its up to you, you would have a good case I think especailly if the CAT scan finds some damage. In fact, I'm pretty sure Steve Moore sued Bertuzzi for his cheap shot so I think if you wanted to you could.

Best of luck to you man I hope your heads allright

[bearfight 1]

That's rough man. Like the others, I'm no expert... but I think maybe you would want to speak with the officer who handled the case. Should the man who gave you the cheap shot have been arrested (especially if it leads to a conviction,) or anything like that it seems you would have more success with a lawsuit.

I would also suggest you don't share your saving up for an apartment as a reason for absolutely needing the money, some might just tell you to use those finances.

[K9 Unit 1]

damn...like others i don't know jack about legal, but hope everything goes well, and i bet you'll have all of our support if you need it

[yrhmblnr8r 69]

Is your league USA Hockey sanctioned? I strained my MCL a couple years ago in a league where we have to buy USAH cards and they covered the medical expenses. If your covered via USAH, the league will have claim forms. You just need the League admin to sign off which should be no problem since he was there.

[bearfight 1]

I forgot about the insurance policy. A teammate took a clapper to the head last season and was in the hospital for about two and a half months, and unable to do anything for some time after that. I'm not sure how much the insurance covered his expenses but it did certainly helped out

[dumbpolak9 1]

if i knew you personally i would support you 100% but thats a d!ck move upon your opponent. best of luck in everything

[Chadd 916]

You can sue for anything, the question is if you can win. Find a lawyer that will only gets paid if he wins and it won't cost you anything up front. You just have to ask for legal fees in addition to your actual costs.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Well, first things first. We're talking about $2,300 here. There is no state in the country where that isn't a small claims court matter. Typically speaking you are not allowed to have an attorney for a small claims matter. You don't really have much a case to be honest, and you'd have to try and sue the guy that punched you. The fact that he punched you because you were engaging in retalilation isn't going to help your case. The fact that the refs didn't call the hit that started this whole thing probably means if they testified their testimony would favor the other party. That would probably be a death nail in a small claims suit. Of course, none of this is really out of the ordinary rec league hockey.

But let's say you some how manage to get over all that, the legal reality is the guy that punched you is not liable for your medical history. In other words, the fact that you had 6 prior concussions is really what made the CAT scan necessary. You might have some traction with the ER and ambluance ride, but again, it could easily be argued that your medical history is what caused this concussion. While the fact he hit would may leave some legal liability, it will be greatly mitigated by the fact you're playing hockey with a serious health issue.

Lastly, even if you do win a judgement the reality is 50% of judgements are never paid. 90% never collect the full amount of the judgement. You have limited options in collecting small claims court judgements. Wage garnishments usually don't happen. The sheriff's office can decline for anything from an existing garnishment (like child support payments) would put the garnishment over the legal limit, to talking with the guy and feeling it would create an undo burden on his family or simply not wanting to do the paper work. Attaching bank accounts is also a crap shoot. Let's say you go that route and the day the bank gets the paper work for the attachment and there's 5 bucks in the account. You don't get a second go at it, your judgement just got settled for $5 in that event. Small claims court judgements are also fully dischargable in bankruptcy proceedings.

Short of it, you don't have much of a case and even if you win it's hardly certain you'll get anything for the trouble.

[ndlancer95 0]

Man, i feel sorry for you. Like most opf the others on here, I don't know jack about legal stuff, but you have a base of 2300 for hospital bills. Next, make sure you know what days you missed your job, and ask your employer for the daily pay, and sue for that too, since you were unable to go to work because of the injury. Good luck in recovery and in the legal case.

[chippa13 1844]

First question, do you not have insurance? That should have covered most of your expenses. Second, if you don't have insurance then what the hell are you doing playing hockey with a history of concussions? Third, if you know you have a soft melon then retaliation probably isn't your best course of action where things could escalate.

As far as the legal thing goes, hockey is a contact sport and most leagues have rules concerning fighting so while it may not be condoned, it is expected. You may not be able to recoup anything.

[usahockey22 0]

There is a great deal of assumed risk when playing a contact sport, and with your medical history, you should know you are assuming even more risk than usual by continuing to play. You won't be able to win a lawsuit unless you were clearly the victim in this situation... a judge will basically hear it as, assumption of risk, guy can dish it out but can't take it (you escalated the violence), let the league deal with it.

Another huge problem here is that you would have to show the cause and effect relationship between getting hit in the head by the person you are taking to court, and therefore suffering head trauma/medical bills. Since you got hit hard in the head twice during this game, you can't claim that your head injury was 100% caused by one guy or the other. Without clearly knowing what caused it, it will be very difficult to get any compensation.

The conclusion will be that hockey, checking league or no-checking league, is a dangerous game, and you assumed the risk by playing. You can consult a lawyer on this issue, but unless you can line up refs, spectators, and players from both teams, and/or a video that all clearly make you out to be a victim, he will probably say something similar.

[Chadd 916]

But let's say you some how manage to get over all that, the legal reality is the guy that punched you is not liable for your medical history. In other words, the fact that you had 6 prior concussions is really what made the CAT scan necessary. You might have some traction with the ER and ambluance ride, but again, it could easily be argued that your medical history is what caused this concussion. While the fact he hit would may leave some legal liability, it will be greatly mitigated by the fact you're playing hockey with a serious health issue.

If the injury came from the punch, the guy that hit him is liable. Medical history in this case cannot cause a concussion, there has to be some type of impact that creates the concussion. It could be argued that it happened before the punch, but that is up to a jury to decide. Once you take a $2500 bill, add in legal fees, any lost wages and potential pain awards you're easily clear of the $10k small claims court limit here in PA. The rink, the refs and the guy that threw the blind side hit would all be included in the suit, as all have some level of liability in the situation. Long story short, one of the insurance groups probably pays off to prevent it from going to trial.

Since you got hit hard in the head twice during this game, you can't claim that your head injury was 100% caused by one guy or the other. Without clearly knowing what caused it, it will be very difficult to get any compensation.

An excellent point, but that's why everyone would generally be included in the lawsuit.

The conclusion will be that hockey, checking league or no-checking league, is a dangerous game, and you assumed the risk by playing. You can consult a lawyer on this issue, but unless you can line up refs, spectators, and players from both teams, and/or a video that all clearly make you out to be a victim, he will probably say something similar.

You cannot be expected to assume that someone will take such extreme action outside the rules and standard practices of the game. Without video and impartial witness statements it is a more difficult case. Unless, of course, someone on the other team feels the action was unacceptable and would be willing to testify against him.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

If the injury came from the punch, the guy that hit him is liable. Medical history in this case cannot cause a concussion, there has to be some type of impact that creates the concussion. It could be argued that it happened before the punch, but that is up to a jury to decide. Once you take a $2500 bill, add in legal fees, any lost wages and potential pain awards you're easily clear of the $10k small claims court limit here in PA. The rink, the refs and the guy that threw the blind side hit would all be included in the suit, as all have some level of liability in the situation. Long story short, one of the insurance groups probably pays off to prevent it from going to trial.

Liability is always limited by mitigating factors, such as what a person could have reasonably expected the outcome of their actions to be. Having a history of concussions makes one more prone to future concussions, that's a medical fact. It was impossible for the other player to know that, and therefore impossible that it was reasonable to believe tossing the punch would lead to such an outcome. And as others have pointed out, the plantiff would have to prove what caused the concussion, which seems pretty murky at this point. Which is to assume he even admits hitting him. The reality is one side will produce witness that say one thing, the other side will produce witnesses that say another. Then it's just a matter of who the judge (or potentially jury in a superior civil court trial) believes. The fact that this largely occurred because the plantiff massively esclated the violence will not lend to his side's creditibility.

The rink has absolutely no liability here, this is a conduct matter. The rink can only be held liable of some part of the building caused the injury, it didn't. Nor could he establish that there was a pattern of conduct which the rink could have, but didn't prevent. Of course, the reality there is it's the league's responsiblity to prevent such conduct. To rent the ice the league has signed extensive waivers, and to play in the league the players have signed acceptence of risk and liability waivers. Pointing the finger at the refs is just going to give them a motive to simply testify that the plantiff was out of control and violent. You're not going to look like a sympathetic victim if the refs' testimony focuses on the plantiff's violent conduct.

Bottom line: you're suing the guy that tossed the punch on a case greatly weakend by the plantiff's own conduct and lack of ability to establish what exactly caused the concussion. If you win you're looking at a judgement you will never collect and being out a bunch of money for a lawyer, court fees, time out of work, and so on. If you loose you're still out a bunch of money.

[chippa13 1844]

Last week I was playing in my league game and was blind sided by some guy who hit me with his helmet right into my cage and totally cleaned me out,( I don't react well to getting hit in the head which is a problem in its self) so I look around at the refs and see there is no call so I skate up the ice give him a nice cross check to the back and some lip service. He then gets the puck on the boards and I stick him with my shoulder,

"Is it reasonable to expect that an altercation could have ensued as a result of your actions?"

"I suppose so."

"And you may have taken a punch as a result?"

"Yeah, maybe, I guess."

"Case dismissed."

[Chadd 916]

It wasn't the guy he was involved with that hit him. Again, this isn't a slam dunk for either side. I have seen actual cases like this win and lose, it depends on the jury.

[djm 0]

Liability is always limited by mitigating factors, such as what a person could have reasonably expected the outcome of their actions to be. Having a history of concussions makes one more prone to future concussions, that's a medical fact. It was impossible for the other player to know that, and therefore impossible that it was reasonable to believe tossing the punch would lead to such an outcome.

Wrong. Eggshell Skull Doctrine.

[chippa13 1844]

It wasn't the guy he was involved with that hit him. Again, this isn't a slam dunk for either side. I have seen actual cases like this win and lose, it depends on the jury.

I don't think it really matters which opponent hit him. We've all stepped in when a teammate is getting a rough go.

[usahockey22 0]

You cannot be expected to assume that someone will take such extreme action outside the rules and standard practices of the game. Without video and impartial witness statements it is a more difficult case. Unless, of course, someone on the other team feels the action was unacceptable and would be willing to testify against him.

Right..."extreme action", such as the OP cross-checking a guy from behind, in retaliation for a "blind side" hit, that may or may not have been a vicious, intentional hit. The retaliation was the start of the events leading to the punch that supposedly caused the injury...the OP wrote that the original hit was helmet-to-helmet, meaning, probably incidental and not a vicious hit. You don't use your own head to slam another guy in the head if you are planning to cheapshot him and not hurt yourself in the process. So, some incidental but violent helmet-to-helmet contact is within the risk you assume when playing hockey, certainly. When he escalated the stakes though, by retaliating with a crosscheck from behind, he was assuming more risk because he decided to initiate violence outside of standard play. This is what it sounds like from the first post, and we haven't even heard the story from the other guy's POV.

[Chadd 916]

It wasn't the guy he was involved with that hit him. Again, this isn't a slam dunk for either side. I have seen actual cases like this win and lose, it depends on the jury.

I don't think it really matters which opponent hit him. We've all stepped in when a teammate is getting a rough go.

What we think doesn't matter, it's what a jury thinks.

[K9 Unit 1]

It wasn't the guy he was involved with that hit him. Again, this isn't a slam dunk for either side. I have seen actual cases like this win and lose, it depends on the jury.

I don't think it really matters which opponent hit him. We've all stepped in when a teammate is getting a rough go.

What we think doesn't matter, it's what a jury thinks.

it would be really bad if the jury doesn't know jack about hockey

[eric42434224 1]

The injured person escalated the violence with another person....not the person who punched him in the head. Can this be a factor as the injured player was not involved with the player that punched him at all. If he did not do anything to thatt player that would result in the attack, doesnt that play in as a factor? I am assuming that a judge or jury wont give credence to a "I was just defending my teammate" defense as that altercation had already ceased and he was just arguing with the refs.

[chippa13 1844]

This will never see a jury and may likely never see a judge, either.

[Chadd 916]

This will never see a jury and may likely never see a judge, either.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. I've seen far worse make it to trial and garner an award.