Dodgers: Bryan Stow Shares Blame

Apparently, it's also Bryan Stow's fault that he got beaten up.

Also, every terrible thing we've ever said about the Dodgers was actually underestimating them...

Sorry if someone had already posted this, couldn't find any links to it.

7 months ago Krukow 24 comments 0 recs |

Comments

It’s standard tort liability practice. If the McCourts’ attorney didn’t argue shared liability in this case, he’d be guilty of malpractice.

The cross-complaint (which also names the guys arrested for the crime) doesn’t seek to put all blame on Stow, just allocate some liability to reduce any final financial award.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 27, 2011 1:12 PM PDT reply actions

this was still a really stupid thing to say in a statement to the press

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Oct 27, 2011 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Not really.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 28, 2011 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions

+1

I’m with can o’ on this one. I hate the Fodgers as much as anyone, but to be fair, your headline is misleading. It’s not the Dodgers that are saying it, it’s thier lawyer. That’s one of the reasons why you hire a lawyer – to say the awkward and repugnant things that our f’d up legal system requires.

"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner

by Fla-Giant on Oct 28, 2011 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions

Unless he wrote the article

He just used the same headline as Ramona Shelburne. And as the lawyer is speaking as the official voice of the Dodgers in the case, it is effectively the Dodgers saying this.

Oscar Wilde may have been a brilliant and talented man, but at the end of the day he was still a cocksucker, just like the Dodgers.

by ptizzy on Oct 28, 2011 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Standard practice or not

This will backfire on them. Public outrage over this is already at unprecedented levels. The parts of victim and aggressor are so black and white in this case, people are pretty much unwilling to accept any culpability on Stow’s part (rightfully so based on his text messages, and the fact that he was hit from behind). Any attempt to shift blame to Stow will only make serve to make jurors less sympathetic towards the Dodgers.

Monday Monkey lives for the weekend, sir.

by AXmrdrir on Oct 27, 2011 1:21 PM PDT reply actions

Are you a litigator?

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 27, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions

But the lawyers in this case aren’t even litigating yet, they’re talking to a journalist. I don’t think you have to be an attorney to realize that certain arguments which make perfect sense in a court of law are extremely damaging to one’s client in the court of public opinion.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 27, 2011 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions

“One of the things the jury will be asked to do is to determine what percentage of fault various individuals have for this event,” McCourt’s attorney Jerome Jackson told ESPNLosAngeles.com.

“You’re saying to the jury, ‘They (the Stow family) are saying we’re 100 percent liable. But does that mean (Marvin) Norwood and (Louis) Sanchez, who beat this guy up, have no liability? And, does it mean Mr. Stow himself has no liability?’ "

Jackson said that if the case goes to a jury trial, he will ask jurors to assign percentages of liability to the Dodgers, McCourt, Norwood, Sanchez, Stow and the other entities named in the original suit. If financial damages are awarded, they would be paid out at those percentages.

Why is this damaging? This is how it works. He’s not saying Stow deserved the beating or anything. It’s a legal process. He’s explained it fairly bluntly. What’s the problem? He can’t ignore it.

I think emotions are high on this, and it colors how some here see those comments. But they’re not nearly as bad as you think.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 28, 2011 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Why is this damaging? This is how it works

Because most people have no idea how it works, and will, like the headline writer, look at that and take away “they’re blaming the guy in a coma?! WTF, Dodgers!”

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 28, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

That’s not a problem he can solve.

He can’t very well absolve Stow of any liability publicly – that would undercut his claims and be considered malpractice. He’s doing what he must. And frankly, if Stow were allocated even 5% liability, on a potential judgment worth millions, that’s not insignificant.

Everybody hates lawyers until they need one. We do what you wouldn’t want to, but our job is to protect your ass.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 28, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions

It's a problem easily solved by not commenting.

Declining to argue for Stow’s liability in the press is not the same thing as absolving him of it.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 28, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions

So if a reporter looks at the legal filing, then asks the lawyer about it, you want him to not say anything? He can talk about any other party’s potential liability, but not that individual’s? So you want him to backtrack from his legal filing?

Not a reasonable expectation.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 28, 2011 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd want him to say nothing.

The Dodgers have nothing to gain from talking to the press in this situation. There’s no way to frame that particular argument that isn’t going to make them look like a bunch of jackasses to a fan base that’s already looking for reasons to beat up on the ownership. Best to clam up and hope the attention dies away.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 28, 2011 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I also think you overestimate the reaction of the Dodger fanbase.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 28, 2011 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Assuming everything you said in the above to be true, none of it counters what CoC said: the McCourts’ attorney wouldn’t be doing his job – and could be sued for malpractice – if he didn’t try any legal claim available to his client(s) to mitigate their inevitable payout. It’s his job to find any instance in which the victim may have contributed to his own predicament just as it is to name the actual perpetrators to lessen the amount his client might have to pay in damages. No, it isn’t pretty, but it’s the adversarial system at work.

And as far as a jury goes, please. There’s no way this is ever going to a jury. It’s going to drag on for a couple years then settle out of court for a large sum, probably attached to some kind of condition that the amount not be made public and/or that the Dodgers aren’t required to admit liability.

The San Francisco Giants: 2010 World Series Champions
I'M A GIRL

by Prussian Creole on Oct 27, 2011 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Aw, you’ve grown up to be such a lovely lawyer.

How you been?

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 27, 2011 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions

The parts of victim and aggressor are so black and white in this case

The Dodgers are neither the victim or the aggressor. So when they argue about who is to blame, I kind of understand why they don’t want to take 100% of it.

Wise words by wcw: "Nobody cares about your Pokemon."
"There’s a new celebrity inside the organization, and it’s a three-foot inanimate object," - Larry Baer, my adopted son.

by ResDog on Oct 31, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions

The headline doesn't do the article justice

“[The Stow Family’s lawyer] Girardi maintains that the Dodgers were negligent in providing adequate security on the night Stow was beaten. He said he was disgusted by McCourt’s decision to countersue Norwood and Sanchez.”

Really? You’re “disgusted” that the perpetrators of a crime should be held more responsible than the person who happened to own the land where it occurred? Really?

As usual, civil litigation has a way of turning everyone involved into an unsympathetic character or a moron.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 27, 2011 3:03 PM PDT reply actions

As usual, civil litigation has a way of turning everyone involved into an unsympathetic character or a moron.

Sadly, this is often the case.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]

I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"

by can of corn on Oct 27, 2011 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions

The people who jumped Bryan Stow probably don't have any money

The Dodgers have millions. I think its ridiculous that they’re assigning all blame to the Dodgers but thats the best strategy to get the most money out of the lawsuit.

"I never stop being amazed by how much people who hate stats because they’re "flawed" quote so much more obviously flawed stats. " -Joe Posnanski

by RichHerreraHomer on Oct 30, 2011 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh, you're absolutely correct.

Millions of people go to their games every season, no reasonable amount of security is going prevent something like this from happening every few years. It’s hard to make the argument that the team is negligent id 1) they had more security at the game than they’ve ever had (as the article claims), and 2) their overall record of safety is excellent (which, considering how many people attend game vs. the number of incidents of this type, is almost certainly true).

If going to a Dodgers game is safer than just about anything else one can do in a public place, I have a hard time accepting that the team was in any way negligent. I doubt that fits the law and legal precedent, though.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Oct 30, 2011 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions

The headline is the only thing that actually sounds bad.

Thing A

by sam23 on Oct 27, 2011 7:16 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah. Wow. Stow wore that Giant garb. He instigated it. The Giants are complicit also, having won a World Series the season before. The two incarcerated Dodger guys only did what any fallible human being would do. (Utter fucking sarcasm)

by dnajms on Oct 27, 2011 10:38 PM PDT reply actions