October 20, 2007
You May Already Be Pacman Jones's Co-Defendant
...at least, given the range of the people and entities on the wrong side of the "v." in the suit filed against the suspended Tennessee Titan/idiot. John Day has some commentary on the suit, where a manager of a strip club in Vegas has sued Jones, the Titans, and the NFL for his injuries in a shooting outside the club. But even the suit against Jones is tenuous at best, since he was not the shooter (at most he started the melee inside, it appears). But the basis for the suit against the NFL and the Titans is, well, you be the judge:
"The fact that the NFL and the Titans did not punish Adam 'Pacman' Jones until after Tommy was paralyzed is a proximate cause of Tommy's injuries," attorney Matthew Dushoff said before a news conference in suburban Las Vegas.
Maybe a factual cause, sure. But getting past duty and legal cause? Good luck with that.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You May Already Be Pacman Jones's Co-Defendant:
'Good luck with that' sure, but what does this do the overall perception of the tort system? The plaintiff's bar it seems apparently loves to self-inflict the wounds of their own stupidity by filing suits such as this (primarily the action against the NFL and Titans) and then publicizing it. This will cause the millions of football fans out there to hate lawyers even more (the Jets fans case hasn't helped) and further the outcries for tort reform, the though the real answer is a public flogging of plaintiff's attorneys when they attempt to pursue such a bogus course of action. As for PacMan, the ghosts are getting closer and there aren't too many powerballs left in the corners.
Posted by: Carl | Oct 21, 2007 9:01:01 AM