[Riskiick]

USTA was negligent.

 

[Riskiick]

Yeah. That will work against her. She chose to walk through a darkened room already shut down for the day rather than go find someone.

I think it might work for her. If she was just wandering around without anyone's knowledge then it would likely be just her fault. But since they were aware that she wanted an ice bath and that going through the training room was the only way she could get there, then leaving the room pitch black with a slippery floor maybe wasn't the best way of looking out for her safety.

 

[Riskiick]

That's the unlucky part, isn't it?
Sometimes you're just at the wrong place at the wrong time in your life. You slip in a dark room where you expect an Ice Bath, I mean come on, that's already enough, to at least blame yourself in parts. And then? Do you really need to discuss, who is "guiltier"?
Shit happens sometimes, it obviously happend that night.

But of course, the lawsuit might have a simple reason, that is not called cash grabbing: Health insurance refusing to pay the cost for the accident.

Absolutely.

 

[Riskiick]

So, she fell because the floor was wet in the locker room where people often shower? How surprising. Do they need to warm you a floor might be wet there every time you enter? This is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Girl, you fell because you were clumsy, take responsibility and deal with it.

Where did you read that?

 

[Riskiick]

Sorry, no, i definetely wouldn't, because I know my own responsibility and entering a dark room, expecting an Ice Bath, isn't the smartest thing to do.
As long as I had a chance to get out of a situation with my own power, I have to ask myself if I took that chance. That's my way to handle things.

I'm sick of searching somebody to blame for everything that happens to you, when you had the chance, to save yourself from it. We don't know the facts, though, so let's see what happens, but with what we know now, this looks like an accident, that was just extremely unlucky, with noone intending to do any harm.

Intention to do harm is not an element that needs to be proven to make out negligence. And accident is not a defense.

There will be arguments back and forth and as you said this won't be clear until the facts are secure. From what I understand right now, the USTA will probably be at fault but Genie will probably be found to be contributorily negligent for failing to take precautions which have been brought up in this thread.

Actually it's most likely that this will be settled outside of court. The USTA probably doesn't want the negative publicity that would surround a case like this.

 

[Riskiick]

The defendants are being charged with two counts of negligence.

The first (paragraph 37) claims "the aforesaid described incident and the resulting injuries to Ms. Bouchard were caused solely by the reason of the carelessness, negligence, wanton and willfull disregard on the part of Defendant USTA ... without any negligence on the part of Ms. Bouchard contributing hereto."

It also claims the USTA had "actual and/or constructive prior notice" of the dangerous conditions and that Bouchard has "been damaged and endured and continues to endure severe pain and suffering, and incurred and continues to incur significant economic loss, medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life."

I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Riskiick]

why Vika didnt sue after her USO tumble?

or did she

On what basis would she sue?

 

[Riskiick]

An accurate depiction of the legal knowledge of some posters in this thread.

 

[Riskiick]

That's not what I'm implying.Bouchard should get compensation for e.g. the Lost Bonus Pool money but the sum where talking about shouldn't exceed one million.

Other judicial cases do look at it differently. For example if in Germany you slip on an icy pavement you get partial blame even though the owners are required by law to take precautionary measures like de-icing salt. The basis for that is that the injured person should have been aware of the higher risk and act accordingly. Now you can't compare those cases 100% but it gives you an idea of how cases like those are handled. If you walk into a dark room you willingly take a risk no matter what's on the floor.

Another example is ski racer Lanzinger who actually lost his leg in a race because the international ski federation (FIS) & its norwegian regional federation failed to organize a decent rescue chain form the slopes to the hospital. He sued for 150k and won.


It's the "millions and millions" talk from her lawyer that is very US-specific here and leads me to roll my eyes.


But like I already said in other posts. We don't yet know the exact specifics of what went on so it's hard to judge too much in either way,

I can't speak for the US Courts, but I believe it is similar in a lot of respects to Canadian law. In negligence cases, those are factors that are also considered (Assuming the risk when stepping onto ice, assuming the risk of stepping into a dark room), these are things that could lead to a finding of contributory negligence where the plaintiff is found to be a certain % at fault, and that percent is removed from the overall reward.

With the ski racer, I think the reward should be much higher than 150k. I'd say much higher than 150K even if he wasn't a professional skiier, but that would certainly add to the cost. I'd be weary of a judicial system that awards only 150K to someone who has to go through the rest of their life and all the troubles/missed opportunities involved in having only one leg. The fact that he must have trained his whole life to be a professional skiier would only amplify these findings in my opinion. In Canada, tort law is designed to bring the plaintiff back to the position they were in had the tort not occurred. This is obviously difficult to quantify when it comes to something like a lost limb, but certainly having only 1 leg and 150K in the bank is not a just remedy.

I agree about the "millions and millions" that probably won't happen, lawyers typically shoot as high as possible, but she likely won't get a reward near the millions and millions range. Granted, we don't know the extent of her concussion. If it has long lasting effects I could see a high reward.

 

[Riskiick]

You have plenty of rights, but you don't have the right to turn misfortune into some sort of winning lottery ticket. Big difference.

It's not a winning lottery ticket.

Tort law is designed to get the plaintiff back to the position they were in before the tort occurred/would have been had the tort not occurred. It is not meant for someone to profit.

 

[Riskiick]

In Germany you have to be careful when walking in the dark. Aint nobody got time for that communist tomfoolery

You're assuming that she wasn't being careful. She may have been careful and still slipped.

 

[Riskiick]

If ]he had been careful and still slipped I think It's an extremely dangerous floor. And i think If It was, so many people would fall like her. But noonee

But I don't think any other players were in her same position which was being around so late and having to go through the dark room with the slippery floor to get to the ice bath.

Most/All other players probably navigated the room either before the lights were off or before the floor was cleaned or both.

 

[Riskiick]

Don't forget so many match was late, so not only her in that situation.
And Can i ask you a question, Why was she so late? practice or what

Her mixed doubles match was scheduled late and then she had to do a press conference after. I believe she was the last one there.

 

[Riskiick]

I hate that the McDonalds hot-coffee case has become the go-to example everyone uses for liability lawsuits run amok.

When you get a cup of coffee at Starbucks or your own coffee maker, it lands in your cup at about 130'F (54'C). Hot enough to be unpleasant if you spill it, but not hazardous. People who buy coffee expect that level of heat. McDonalds, as a matter of policy, was brewing and serving coffee at 190'F (88'C), a near-boiling temperature which causes severe scalding injuries if you get any on you. Reasonable people expected the former, and got the latter at McDonalds, because it saved them a little money. Meanwhile, the 79-year-old lady who got burned didn't sue because it stained her beautiful pair of sweatpants, she sued because she sustained serious, life-altering 3rd-degree burns from the excessively hot coffee. She was in the hospital for eight days, got skin grafts, lost 20 pounds and was permanently disfigured. From a cup of goddamn coffee.

Cases like the Liebeck-McDonalds case are exactly why we have products-and-operations liability laws (and insurance for it). It's the system working as it should to prevent crazy, buyer-beware hellscapes. There are lots of frivolous lawsuits out there, but that ain't one.

</rant>

I'm glad you brought that up. I actually never knew the facts of that case until someone posted it later in this thread. But I agree with everything you said here.

 

[Riskiick]

How DARE someone not be from Murica, right?

I'm perfectly okay with anyone being from anywhere that isn't America. I'm not myself.

But does that mean I shouldn't make fun of these posters when they talk about how stupid the US Legal system is without understanding how it works? Probably not. A lot of the criticisms I've seen in this thread are either not true or are addressed by (my understanding of) the US legal system.

 

[Riskiick]

so is your point that people can sue for negligence?, ill concede that lol

but i think mopping a floor and turning off the light isnt negligent, in fact i think walking into the darkness and falling over is more negligent especially when your health is very valuable

dont tell me somebody should have brought out the wet floor sign?, that thing is a piece of crap and useless when you are going to turn off the lights

btw does anybody know the level of darkness in the room? was it pitch black?

if it was pitch black then that is worse for genie imo, that itself is a better warning than a sign that people usually ignore anyway

if she didnt fall over, lets say she walked into a dark room and walked into something with enough force to break her nose?, you are about to tell me that she should sue because they turned off the lights negligently?

and clearly she walked into the room recklessly enough to slip over because she slipped over

:lol:

 

[Riskiick]

My assumption is based on lawyers being scum.....am i wrong in that assumption?

Yes.

 

[Riskiick]

She could have sued the city of Munich for leaving the sidewalk in dangerous conditions, as far as we know, she didn't .

Also, remeber Vika injuring herself on the slippery grass in Wimbledon. Actually, it could have been worth a try there too. She openly critizised the Tournament, but as much as we know, no lawsuit.
And then, there was her own fall that lead to a mild concussion at the US Open, we don't know how it happend, who knows, maybe it could have been worth it, too.


The list of potential successful lawsuits is probably endless on the tour. But maybe there are countries, where it's worth it and others, where it's not.

Do you really think those examples are analogous to Bouchard's case?

I don't know the facts about Serena injuring her foot in Munich, but the examples of Vika injuring herself on court do not compare.

 

[Riskiick]

I don't think they need to be analogous, just an inspiration.
Just as I think, that Genie got the inspiration doing it, I have a hard time believing she stood up with an angy face, threatening to sue them as her first intention.
So maybe others just lacked the inspiration to do so. Genie obviously has one oft the most professional teams you could imagine in this sport.

But yeah, making players play on a slippery court, which sometimes happens, even with players protesting, could potentially mean trouble.
But falling on the grass (or a slippery floor) in Wimbledon most probably wouldn't have the same outcome, as falling on a slippery floor at the US Open.

If you know the grass is slippery, then you assume the risk of slipping and falling when you walk onto the court to play a tennis match.

Walking into a training room that has been treated with a slippery substance with no posted signs is different.