Calling all Lawyers

#1
volfromfla56

volfromfla56

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,296
Likes
0
#1
Look, in my opinion, what the New York Times is doing is abysmal and slanderous. They have misquoted the players, and the parents of the players. They have called what was going on a NCAA investigation when it isn't. Now they have in effect gone as far as to call the UT hostesses "well groomed and coached".

There is no evidence to suggest these girls were paid for their services, yet the New York Times has effectively forever labeled them as whores, in effect ruining their futures. This seems to me like a defamation of character lawsuit if I ever saw one.

I'm not up on slander laws, so I wondering if UT, the hostesses, the players, the parents of the players... have a leg to stand on, or am I just reaching here?
 
#2
#2
A woman spilled hot coffee on herself and got a million dollars, there is always a case.
 
#3
#3
GahLee said:
A woman spilled hot coffee on herself and got a million dollars, there is always a case.
Click to expand...

Lol, also, another woman burnt her chin on a hot pickle that fell out of the sandwich and her husband sued bc she couldn't perform her wifely duties, and won. That was freaking awesome when I heard it. Only problem is that with my wife I wouldn't have a case bc she doesn't do it anyways. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
BigOrangeCrush32 said:
Lol, also, another woman burnt her chin on a hot pickle that fell out of the sandwich and her husband sued bc she couldn't perform her wifely duties, and won. That was freaking awesome when I heard it. Only problem is that with my wife I wouldn't have a case bc she doesn't do it anyways. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

:lolabove::eek:lol::post-4-1090547912::eek:lol::post-4-1090547912:
 
#6
#6
BigOrangeCrush32 said:
Lol, also, another woman burnt her chin on a hot pickle that fell out of the sandwich and her husband sued bc she couldn't perform her wifely duties, and won. That was freaking awesome when I heard it. Only problem is that with my wife I wouldn't have a case bc she doesn't do it anyways. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

:eek:hmy:
 
#7
#7
GahLee said:
A woman spilled hot coffee on herself and got a million dollars, there is always a case.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, if by hot coffee you mean "it scalded her so bad that it became a serious medical condition and she had to go to the hospital" then yes

And they awarded her a million dollars in punitive damages. The idea is that McDonalds makes so much money every day that smaller amounts would be pocket change. So they charged them the amount they make on coffee sales in one day, to get them to change their act.
 
#8
#8
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, if by hot coffee you mean "it scalded her so bad that it became a serious medical condition and she had to go to the hospital" then yes

And they awarded her a million dollars in punitive damages. The idea is that McDonalds makes so much money every day that smaller amounts would be pocket change. So they charged them the amount they make on coffee sales in one day, to get them to change their act.
Click to expand...


whatever
 
#9
#9
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, if by hot coffee you mean "it scalded her so bad that it became a serious medical condition and she had to go to the hospital" then yes

And they awarded her a million dollars in punitive damages. The idea is that McDonalds makes so much money every day that smaller amounts would be pocket change. So they charged them the amount they make on coffee sales in one day, to get them to change their act.
Click to expand...
Are you really attempting to justify some of the most heinous litigation in the last 15 years?
 
#12
#12
JFreak said:
Are you really attempting to justify some of the most heinous litigation in the last 15 years?
Click to expand...

He's actually correct. He's not attempting to justify it. The jury in that case did it for him! :)

You only ever get the 50,000 foot view of this case, and admittedly it looks ridiculous.

When you actually get into the facts, her injuries were pretty serious, and the punitive damages against Mickie D's are a comparative drop in their bucket (or olympic-sized swimming pool).

Bottom line, the attorneys in this case made a case compelling enough to convince a jury. At the end of the day, the award was $640K, and the actual settlement was "undisclosed", which means that it was probably substantially less than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
 
#13
#13
Snakes on a Wii said:
Uhhh, if by hot coffee you mean "it scalded her so bad that it became a serious medical condition and she had to go to the hospital" then yes

And they awarded her a million dollars in punitive damages. The idea is that McDonalds makes so much money every day that smaller amounts would be pocket change. So they charged them the amount they make on coffee sales in one day, to get them to change their act.
Click to expand...


While mostly accurate, this post has the feel of one of my adversarial brethren from the dark side (plaintiffs' bar). As for the OP's slander question (this would actually be liable because it is written defamation - slander is spoken), I SERIOUSLY doubt there is a case due to the protections of the 1st Amendment. That being said, suit could be filed for a public relations statement. However, I doubt the NYT is in the habit of settling liable cases and that could actually backfire against the plaintiffs (hostesses and/or university).

Spell check - libel not liable
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
kcvols1 said:
He's actually correct. He's not attempting to justify it. The jury in that case did it for him! :)

You only ever get the 50,000 foot view of this case, and admittedly it looks ridiculous.

When you actually get into the facts, her injuries were pretty serious, and the punitive damages against Mickie D's are a comparative drop in their bucket (or olympic-sized swimming pool).

Bottom line, the attorneys in this case made a case compelling enough to convince a jury. At the end of the day, the award was $640K, and the actual settlement was "undisclosed", which means that it was probably substantially less than that.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I don't care if her injuries are serious, SHE is the one that spilled the coffee. It is akin to me falling off a bike and suing Huffy, who failed to properly train me in riding techniques, because I broke my arm. I don't need a tort class in law school to teach me how that is asinine. Oh and I'll play the most obvious card of all. A jury once let OJ off (around the time of this case ironically), was that justified in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
Back to the matter at hand...

I think that a case of libel or defamation may not exist yet. There has been no statement of the NYT that was false, unless you count the statement about the content of the sign.

However, the statement about the sign is not the statement which caused the injury here. The innuendo and implication is doing ALL the damage. From what I have seen, such cases are very hard to prove.

Easterwood's statements are a different matter. The girl who he alleged "brushed her breasts against him" may have a claim. The evidentiary bar is pretty high here, as it would undoubtedly boil down to a "he said, she said" case. If she can get enough witnesses on her side, though... GAME ON!

FYI, the Georgia elements of defamation:

- a false statement about the plaintiff;
- communication of the statement to a third party in the absence of a special privilege to do so;
- fault of the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and
- harm to the plaintiff.

Georgia elements of libel:

- false statement about another person
-in the absence of specific privilege
-expressed in print
-which injures the reputation of the subject person
-subjecting them to public contempt or ridicule
 
#17
#17
JFreak said:
I don't care if her injuries are serious, SHE is the one that spilled the coffee. It is akin to me falling off a bike and suing Huffy, who failed to properly train me in riding techniques, because I broke my arm. I don't need a tort class in law school to teach me how that is asinine.
Click to expand...

You're using a really bad analogy. Nobody argued that McDonald's should have taught her how to handle and drink coffee.

There's a duty to warn of dangers present in products a company sells to the public for profit. If you are going to make a million bucks a minute, the law expects a warning label in return. Seems like a small price to pay.

Look at the bike you buy your kid for Christmas - it carries a warning. It won't affect your kid's ability to ride and enjoy it one bit.
 
#19
#19
kcvols1 said:
You're using a really bad analogy. Nobody argued that McDonald's should have taught her how to handle and drink coffee.

There's a duty to warn of dangers present in products a company sells to the public for profit. If you are going to make a million bucks a minute, the law expects a warning label in return. Seems like a small price to pay.

Look at the bike you buy your kid for Christmas - it carries a warning. It won't affect your kid's ability to ride and enjoy it one bit.
Click to expand...
The line of logic used by the attorneys in this case was that the coffee was TOO hot, as in much hotter than other fast food restaurants. Using that logic, they could have still sued even if there was a label on the lid saying "Hot". And by the way, do you need a label to tell you that coffee is hot?
 
#20
#20
Actually, lets just drop the McDonalds coffee case and get back to the task at hand. It would be so awesome if the NYT could be sued in this case. It would almost assuredly put them out of business with their dwindling circulation numbers at this point.
 
#21
#21
Actually, now that I think about it, the Richard Jewell case leaps to mind.

...but those statements were a WHOLE lot worse.
 
#22
#22
I'm concerned that because of these stories in the NYT, in particular, Westerwood's statements will cause great harm to the future of a child. If it's true, that's on her, and she made the choice and has to deal with the consequences! But Westerwood is known for being bitter about his son not getting a Bball scholarship, so his credibility is suspect IMO. But again, he doesn't have to prove she did "rub her breasts up against his son", he just has to allege that it happened, and the damage is done. Yet if the girl in question, ever wants to clear her name, she has to prove that she didn't do it. Last time I checked, in the USA, you don't have to prove a negative.

Anyway, I'm no lawyer, thank god. But I am a parent of a 7 year old girl, and I think to myself, if I was the father of the girls in question, I would want Thamel's head on a pike!
 
#23
#23
kcvols1 is on point as laws vary from state to state. Folks need to understand and get defined for themselves the technical differences between libel, slander, and defamation. I do however strenuously disgree w kcvols1 in that the NYTimes falsely reported the University of Tennessee was under NCAA investigation when it was not, that was a falsehood. They then linked this initial falsehood to hostesses of Orange Pride. I believe a reasonable jury could be convinced each and every young lady of the Orange Pride unit has been seriously harmed & damaged. The damages originated with the NCAA leaker making that organization and it's agent personally libel, then the NYTimes and Thamel each libel as well for some serious money to restore these young ladies from the harms visited on them. There is to this very morning no investigation of the University of Tennessee by the NCAA, there may be one, but the NYTimes printed a falsehood on the day of publication and with that initial falsehood created harms and damages.
 
#25
#25
Why isn't Bama being investigated:

The Pouncey twins told officials at the SEC championship game, " If Tarrence Cody doesn't stop rubbing his breasts on me, we have a problem".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top