Tennis Forum banner
1481 - 1500 of 1578 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
19,328 Posts
You don't usually reveal any conversation between the jury. She settled and they can't really appeal but how hard is it not to tweet that? She's getting killed on Twitter over this.

She sure knows how to get people talking but it's rarely for the right reasons.
Genie's tweet indicates it happened as the person was leaving the jury box. So this "conversation" was officially no longer part of the case.

I'm more surprised by the so called neutral jury member's rush and audacity (remembering her B-Day AND yelling it in a courtroom as soon as he or she was allowed to get away with it.

This is practically Saint2 level stanning.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,519 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Sparkle

· Registered
Joined
·
12,748 Posts
Thanks. But is there any particular significance to that timeframe?
I think most people are aware she didn't have a great 2015 even without tailored stats like that.
I don't know why they used that timeframe. If you take it for a whole year prior to the US open, the stat is 11-17. Despite the injury, she was already back playing for Beijing... Obviously the injury should never have happened and the USTA should be held accountable. But did have a huge impact on her career like BlueTrees and Genie stans are trying to make out? I don't think so... If the injury had never happened I think her results would be pretty much the same, except maybe she would have even more losses.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,519 Posts
I agree. They weren't here for her shit, and they knew she'd fold for a fraction of what she was seeking when it came time to reveal what she's actually making while playing challengers, flashing her bits for magazines, and prostrating herself on social media.

And she didn't mind dragging this out because this is the only thing keeping her in the in the headlines and painting her as a damsel in distress.
You might have meant to say prostituting herself, but prostrating herself works just as well in this context :lol:

It's hard to find a tennis player with no redeeming quality whatsoever. If Genie wants to blame someone for her tragic fall in the rankings, she should look in the mirror but I'm sure what she only sees in the mirror is the "most beautiful tennis player" since sliced bread.
Sliced bread was a beautiful tennis player?
Genie and slicing don't go well together :p
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,755 Posts
I don't know why they used that timeframe. If you take it for a whole year prior to the US open, the stat is 11-17. Despite the injury, she was already back playing for Beijing... Obviously the injury should never have happened and the USTA should be held accountable. But did have a huge impact on her career like BlueTrees and Genie stans are trying to make out? I don't think so... If the injury had never happened I think her results would be pretty much the same, except maybe she would have even more losses.
This and every other stat showing how shit Bouchard's results were is legally irrelevant. Tennis is FULL of players who turned round losing streaks to go on to bigger things so showing evidence of bad form is pretty meaningless.

IMO Bouchard was never talented enough to be a true top player, based on her technique and game, but this too is legally irrelevant.

Whether the concussion had a long-term impact on her career is a medical question (based on whether she still suffers symptoms, whether it affects her physical ability to train etc, or not), not a tennis analysis one. And no one here has access to her medical records.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18,564 Posts
I don't know why they used that timeframe. If you take it for a whole year prior to the US open, the stat is 11-17. Despite the injury, she was already back playing for Beijing... Obviously the injury should never have happened and the USTA should be held accountable. But did have a huge impact on her career like BlueTrees and Genie stans are trying to make out? I don't think so... If the injury had never happened I think her results would be pretty much the same, except maybe she would have even more losses.
I think it's fair to say she missed the rest of 2015 due to the injury. (Retired in Beijing). How much, or if, it continues to affect her to this day I don't know, but she definitely lost momentum.

But we also don't know exactly what the settlement was, and she sued for a) past/future pain and suffering, b) past/future lost income and earnings capacity, and c) past/future medical expenses. So the settlement covers more than just "future earning capacity" which is what a lot of people are hung up on.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,748 Posts
This and every other stat showing how shit Bouchard's results were is legally irrelevant. Tennis is FULL of players who turned round losing streaks to go on to bigger things so showing evidence of bad form is pretty meaningless.

IMO Bouchard was never talented enough to be a true top player, based on her technique and game, but this too is legally irrelevant.

Whether the concussion had a long-term impact on her career is a medical question (based on whether she still suffers symptoms, whether it affects her physical ability to train etc, or not), not a tennis analysis one. And no one here has access to her medical records.
Nope, but the fact that she went on to play an event one month after the accident suggests she either ignored the medical advice she was given or she was given the all clear by her doctor. And then she was back playing again from the start of the following year. The accident had barely any impact on her schedule at all.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19,328 Posts
Low endorsements == low claim value for damages. Importantly, Bouchard's legal teeam would have to PROVE her alleged concussion caused loss of endorsements - that means exposing ALL her endorsement deals over the last 5 years. The USTA took this to court because they knew that her sponsors would never allow her to disclose details of their contracts. When the judge allowed details on social media and contracts, Bouchard's legal team, along with USTA legal team, knew Bouchard was forced to settle with very reduced settlement - probably less than $10M and her portion was probably less than $5M.

Bouchard 'talent' and 'marketability' is smoke in mirrors. Her marketability a few levels higher than an webcam model, who, like Bouchard, main audience is a bunch of h*rny guys between 18 and 45.

Now that it's common knowledge she's litigious, let's see how many sponsors she can secure. :wavey:
Dude you have it completely backwards.

The USTA's argument was not that she was not rich but rather that she was too rich and still rich after the floor incident as before (i.e. that she didn't suffer financially due to the accident). Here's what the USTA lawyer literally said in the courtroom in either the opening or closing argument: “When you hear how much money Ms. Bouchard has made from endorsements, you’re not going to believe it, it’s staggering".

By the way that she is rich is not debatable. Forbes ranked Genie as the 9th or 10th in their latest (2017) top ten richest female athletes of the world list. We don't need a court room presentation of her literal contracts to know that she has a few coins in her purse. There is enough public information.

I mean I don't even like Genie but this rather new TF claim that Genie is some sort of secret destitute pretending to be rich is a rather comical wishful hater fantasy. Girl is the number one Canadian, a G7 country loaded with enough moolah to sustain 100 Genies if they care to desire.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,644 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/sports/tennis/bouchard-usta-lawsuit.html

Eugenie Bouchard and the United States Tennis Association reached a resolution on Friday, ending Bouchard’s lawsuit over the head injury she sustained from a fall at the 2015 United States Open.

The terms of the settlement are sealed and confidential.

“It’s been a long time, but it’s something I wanted to do,” Bouchard said of the lawsuit. “It’s been two and a half years, so I’m happy it’s over.”

In a statement later Friday, the U.S.T.A. said the matter “has reached an amicable conclusion for both parties” and added, “We also wish Ms. Bouchard the best of luck moving forward.”

Bouchard sued the U.S.T.A. in October 2015, about six weeks after she slipped on cleaning fluid on the floor of a dimly lit trainers room at the U.S. Open in New York. She had to withdraw from the singles, doubles and mixed doubles events, and she did not complete a match for the rest of that season.

In Court, Eugenie Bouchard Describes Locker Room Fall at the U.S. Open FEB. 21, 2018
Bouchard, 23, won the liability phase of the trial on Thursday, though the jury said that she bore 25 percent of the comparative negligence for her injury. That meant that the U.S.T.A. would have had to pay Bouchard only 75 percent of whatever value the jury assigned to her damages.

“I feel vindicated that I got the verdict yesterday,” Bouchard said. “Just relief and happiness right now.”

After each side’s lawyers made lengthy opening arguments in the damages phase of the trial at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, proceedings were suspended for four hours as the legal teams, Bouchard and representatives from the U.S.T.A. met.

Benedict Morelli, Bouchard’s lawyer, initially said he was ready to put her on the stand after the hours of talks had not yielded a resolution. She testified Wednesday in the liability phase of the trial. But in the corridors of the courthouse, Morelli appeared to persuade Bouchard, who was alongside her mother, Julie Leclair, to take the deal the U.S.T.A. had offered.

“When people attack you and attack your name, you get affected by that,” Morelli said of Bouchard’s hesitation. “When you’re resolving it, you want to make sure you can live with it.”

“She’s pleasantly living with it,” he added.

Leclair began to cry as she expressed her relief at the settlement.

“Just relieved that it’s over,” she said. “We try to put it out of our minds, but it’s been a tough two years. Tough on her, tough on the whole family, and I’m just glad it’s over.”

The opening arguments of the damages phase set up what could have been fascinating, speculative arguments about how Bouchard’s career might have proceeded had the injury not occurred.

She reached the fourth round of the 2015 U.S. Open before being forced to withdraw. Morelli contended that Bouchard, then No. 25 in the world, was likely to win her next two matches and make the semifinals, because she was ranked ahead of the women who would have been her opponents, No. 43 Roberta Vinci and No. 40 Kristina Mladenovic.

He further argued that Bouchard would have had a chance to win against top-ranked Serena Williams in the semifinals, mentioning that “Genie has beaten Serena Williams in the past.” He did not disclose that that win had come at the Hopman Cup exhibition event, which is not counted in head-to-head records.

Alan Kaminsky, the U.S.T.A.’s lawyer, countered by pointing out that Bouchard’s results had been poor throughout the 2015 season. He noted that she had lost, badly, to Vinci just one week before the Open and that she had a losing record against Mladenovic.

“The chances of her winning the U.S. Open that year were extremely not good,” Kaminsky said.

The U.S.T.A. also appeared ready to dispute the nature of Bouchard’s injury itself, rebutting the diagnosis of a concussion. (At the time of her withdrawal from the tournament, Open officials announced that a concussion was her official reason.)

Kaminsky said that numerous magnetic resonance imaging exams were found to be negative for a concussion.

“She did have a bang to the head, and was treated properly for that,” he said.

Kaminsky also countered Bouchard’s assertion that she had lost millions in possible endorsement deals because of the fall, saying she “did not lose one endorsement deal” after the accident.

“When you hear how much money Ms. Bouchard has made from endorsements, you’re not going to believe it,” Kaminsky told the jury. “It’s staggering.”

The jury did not end up hearing that information, which Bouchard had been eager to keep private. She had filed a motion, which was denied, seeking to remove reporters from the courtroom for testimony regarding her endorsements.

Bouchard had also wanted her social media posts to be kept out of the trial, arguing that they painted a misleadingly sunny portrait of her life since the injury. Judge Ann M. Donnelly ruled against that request, too, saying that the court is public and that social media is an admissible record of her state of mind pertaining to various claims of emotional damages and psychological suffering.

Bouchard’s next tournament is expected to be in Indian Wells, Calif., in March. She is currently ranked 116th, well outside the cutoff for the main draw, but she said she was hoping to receive a wild card.

-----------------------------------------

That she won the liability phase of the trial was NID (even if the jury didn't find the USTA 100% responsable)

After reading the beginnning of what it was supposed to be the damages phase of the trial, it feels like Bouchard and her lawyers were the ones who needed to reach a settlement more than the USTA.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
29,734 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/sports/tennis/bouchard-usta-lawsuit.html

Eugenie Bouchard and the United States Tennis Association reached a resolution on Friday, ending Bouchard’s lawsuit over the head injury she sustained from a fall at the 2015 United States Open.

The terms of the settlement are sealed and confidential.

“It’s been a long time, but it’s something I wanted to do,” Bouchard said of the lawsuit. “It’s been two and a half years, so I’m happy it’s over.”

In a statement later Friday, the U.S.T.A. said the matter “has reached an amicable conclusion for both parties” and added, “We also wish Ms. Bouchard the best of luck moving forward.”

Bouchard sued the U.S.T.A. in October 2015, about six weeks after she slipped on cleaning fluid on the floor of a dimly lit trainers room at the U.S. Open in New York. She had to withdraw from the singles, doubles and mixed doubles events, and she did not complete a match for the rest of that season.

In Court, Eugenie Bouchard Describes Locker Room Fall at the U.S. Open FEB. 21, 2018
Bouchard, 23, won the liability phase of the trial on Thursday, though the jury said that she bore 25 percent of the comparative negligence for her injury. That meant that the U.S.T.A. would have had to pay Bouchard only 75 percent of whatever value the jury assigned to her damages.

“I feel vindicated that I got the verdict yesterday,” Bouchard said. “Just relief and happiness right now.”

After each side’s lawyers made lengthy opening arguments in the damages phase of the trial at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, proceedings were suspended for four hours as the legal teams, Bouchard and representatives from the U.S.T.A. met.

Benedict Morelli, Bouchard’s lawyer, initially said he was ready to put her on the stand after the hours of talks had not yielded a resolution. She testified Wednesday in the liability phase of the trial. But in the corridors of the courthouse, Morelli appeared to persuade Bouchard, who was alongside her mother, Julie Leclair, to take the deal the U.S.T.A. had offered.

“When people attack you and attack your name, you get affected by that,” Morelli said of Bouchard’s hesitation. “When you’re resolving it, you want to make sure you can live with it.”

“She’s pleasantly living with it,” he added.

Leclair began to cry as she expressed her relief at the settlement.

“Just relieved that it’s over,” she said. “We try to put it out of our minds, but it’s been a tough two years. Tough on her, tough on the whole family, and I’m just glad it’s over.”

The opening arguments of the damages phase set up what could have been fascinating, speculative arguments about how Bouchard’s career might have proceeded had the injury not occurred.

She reached the fourth round of the 2015 U.S. Open before being forced to withdraw. Morelli contended that Bouchard, then No. 25 in the world, was likely to win her next two matches and make the semifinals, because she was ranked ahead of the women who would have been her opponents, No. 43 Roberta Vinci and No. 40 Kristina Mladenovic.

He further argued that Bouchard would have had a chance to win against top-ranked Serena Williams in the semifinals, mentioning that “Genie has beaten Serena Williams in the past.” He did not disclose that that win had come at the Hopman Cup exhibition event, which is not counted in head-to-head records.

Alan Kaminsky, the U.S.T.A.’s lawyer, countered by pointing out that Bouchard’s results had been poor throughout the 2015 season. He noted that she had lost, badly, to Vinci just one week before the Open and that she had a losing record against Mladenovic.

“The chances of her winning the U.S. Open that year were extremely not good,” Kaminsky said.

The U.S.T.A. also appeared ready to dispute the nature of Bouchard’s injury itself, rebutting the diagnosis of a concussion. (At the time of her withdrawal from the tournament, Open officials announced that a concussion was her official reason.)

Kaminsky said that numerous magnetic resonance imaging exams were found to be negative for a concussion.

“She did have a bang to the head, and was treated properly for that,” he said.

Kaminsky also countered Bouchard’s assertion that she had lost millions in possible endorsement deals because of the fall, saying she “did not lose one endorsement deal” after the accident.

“When you hear how much money Ms. Bouchard has made from endorsements, you’re not going to believe it,” Kaminsky told the jury. “It’s staggering.”

The jury did not end up hearing that information, which Bouchard had been eager to keep private. She had filed a motion, which was denied, seeking to remove reporters from the courtroom for testimony regarding her endorsements.

Bouchard had also wanted her social media posts to be kept out of the trial, arguing that they painted a misleadingly sunny portrait of her life since the injury. Judge Ann M. Donnelly ruled against that request, too, saying that the court is public and that social media is an admissible record of her state of mind pertaining to various claims of emotional damages and psychological suffering.

Bouchard’s next tournament is expected to be in Indian Wells, Calif., in March. She is currently ranked 116th, well outside the cutoff for the main draw, but she said she was hoping to receive a wild card.

-----------------------------------------

That she won the liability phase of the trial was NID (even if the jury didn't find the USTA 100% responsable)

After reading the beginnning of what it was supposed to be the damages phase of the trial, it feels like Bouchard and her lawyers were the ones who needed to reach a settlement more than the USTA.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
The lawyer, Morelli, is such a sleaze ball but he knew exactly how to pull the right strings in the system. He could get away with saying things like she had a chance to win against Serena.

Seems that Eugenie, in a frazzled emotional state post the fall, has become the unwitting manipulated pawn of the fee chasing vulture. But once the process was set in motion, she could not back out of it.

At some points she was posting tons of dumb things, like her broken nail, so maybe the fall did some brain damage after all :nerd:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
On the contrary, this case once again exposed the problems in civil litigation in the United States and the need for reform. According to the jury, USTA was responsible at 75% for Bouchard's fall, with Bouchard responsible for the rest. So, a fair award would be the sum of


  • 75% of Genie's expected further prize money winnings at that US Open and tournaments within a reasonable time frame for her injury to heal. That would be based on the testimony of medical doctors regarding that time period and the extent of the effect of the injury on her level of play, and the testimony of tennis experts regarding her level of play near the period of injury. Bouchard has been able to play at a high level occasionally (e.g., beating Sharapova in Madrid), so the argument that she has been affected for life doesn't hold water. It also doesn't make any sense medically (did she claim permanent brain damage from the fall?)

  • No compensation for supposed losses from sponsoring and PR activities, unless she was comatose and couldn't perform those activities with a reasonable delay of a few days/weeks.

  • A fair amount for "pain and suffering" purposes, proportionate to her injury and her debilitation from daily activities during her period of convalescence.

  • 75% of her medical costs directly related to her fall to the extent that they weren't covered by her or USTA's insurance (unlikely).


I would generously estimate the period in (a) to be around three months (she made the final of a tournament in the first week of 2016). Bouchard had roughly $600,000 in winnings during the entire 2016, and another $600,000 in 2017, so $600,000*(3/12) = $150,000 seems about the right amount of her expected prize money in the next three months. Add to this her statistically expected additional prize money in USO 2015. She gave a walkover against Vinci in R4 who was in great form and then played Mladenovic, Serena, and Flavia so let's assume that Bouchard had 30%, 50%, 5%, and 50% chances in her next four matches - that gives an additional expected prize amount of 30%*([making QF](470,000-254,000) + 50%*([making SF](920,000-470,000) + 5%*([making final](1,825,000-920,000) + 50%*[winning](3,700,000-1,825,000)))) using 2017 USO prize money, or about another $146,000. $50,000 seems to me appropriate for her "pain and suffering" during the few weeks she was affected by the concussion, and another $50,000 should have been more than enough for her medical expenses for this kind of injury (minus what her insurance paid). So her total compensation for the incident should be at most 75%*(150,000+146,000+100,000), or a little less than $300,000, minus any medical costs covered by insurance and plus reasonable legal costs.

Instead, based on what most people say here, she will receive an obsene amount at least fifteen times more (and possibly fifty times more) than what would be fair for her injury, the equivalent of winning one to three grand slams and being set for life after a very minor incident against a suitable, rich plaintiff. This is a travesty in the American judicial system, where one can be lucky with a minor injury like this and milk it for much more than it is worth. This does not come without consequences. It will promote this culture of getting fat rewards for nothing to other players, who might want to also cash in in similar ways rather than earn their matches the hard way. It will probably instigate changes in the way USTA (and other tennis organizations) handle players - I won't be surprised if players aren't allowed to go anywhere on tournament grounds without two chaperones at all times, increasing costs and restricting players' freedom. In the end, the award money and the increased costs come directly out of the money Bouchard's fellow players and other USTA projects (like promoting tennis to kids and recreational players) will have - USTA is a non-profit, not an evil corporation, so Bouchard's greed and the U.S. legal system's incompetence mean less resources for those that need them far more than Bouchard does.
So you wouldn't have sued if you fell due to the a wet floor? Who are you mad at exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hablo

· Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
Nope, but the fact that she went on to play an event one month after the accident suggests she either ignored the medical advice she was given or she was given the all clear by her doctor. And then she was back playing again from the start of the following year. The accident had barely any impact on her schedule at all.
And

And, sooo....??? USTA is still at fault.. and would be paying anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hablo

· Registered
Joined
·
34,025 Posts
The fact that she erased her tweet shows that is was dumb as hell to do it in the first place.

She did lose her 2015 USO and Asian swing prize money but that wasn't worth 10-15 millions. Then she said that she had fully recovered when she came back in early 2016. Eugenie then blamed family issues for her loss in the Hobart final.

She can only blame herself for failing to improve anything in her game even though a handful of elite coaches tried to help her. That's what ruined her career, not the concussion.

This decision will affect many tournaments' operations. Players that throw matches for a quick 50K can surely have a "concussion" for a few millions. Most won't be able to sue for lost sponsorships or pretend that they were stolen of an elite career but they can sue for emotional trauma, punitive damages and whatnot.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
52,604 Posts
The fact that she erased her tweet shows that is was dumb as hell to do it in the first place.

This decision will affect many tournaments' operations. Players that throw matches for a quick 50K can surely have a "concussion" for a few millions. Most won't be able to sue for lost sponsorships or pretend that they were stolen of an elite career but they can sue for emotional trauma, punitive damages and whatnot.
Wiggly: you are usually smarter than this. The issue was negligence by the USTA and not the just concussion itself really... She could have had any other injury and still sued because of their carelessness... :tape:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marlene

· Registered
Joined
·
2,638 Posts
On the contrary, this case once again exposed the problems in civil litigation in the United States and the need for reform. According to the jury, USTA was responsible at 75% for Bouchard's fall, with Bouchard responsible for the rest. So, a fair award would be the sum of


  • 75% of Genie's expected further prize money winnings at that US Open and tournaments within a reasonable time frame for her injury to heal. That would be based on the testimony of medical doctors regarding that time period and the extent of the effect of the injury on her level of play, and the testimony of tennis experts regarding her level of play near the period of injury. Bouchard has been able to play at a high level occasionally (e.g., beating Sharapova in Madrid), so the argument that she has been affected for life doesn't hold water. It also doesn't make any sense medically (did she claim permanent brain damage from the fall?)

  • No compensation for supposed losses from sponsoring and PR activities, unless she was comatose and couldn't perform those activities with a reasonable delay of a few days/weeks.

  • A fair amount for "pain and suffering" purposes, proportionate to her injury and her debilitation from daily activities during her period of convalescence.

  • 75% of her medical costs directly related to her fall to the extent that they weren't covered by her or USTA's insurance (unlikely).


I would generously estimate the period in (a) to be around three months (she made the final of a tournament in the first week of 2016). Bouchard had roughly $600,000 in winnings during the entire 2016, and another $600,000 in 2017, so $600,000*(3/12) = $150,000 seems about the right amount of her expected prize money in the next three months. Add to this her statistically expected additional prize money in USO 2015. She gave a walkover against Vinci in R4 who was in great form and then played Mladenovic, Serena, and Flavia so let's assume that Bouchard had 30%, 50%, 5%, and 50% chances in her next four matches - that gives an additional expected prize amount of 30%*([making QF](470,000-254,000) + 50%*([making SF](920,000-470,000) + 5%*([making final](1,825,000-920,000) + 50%*[winning](3,700,000-1,825,000)))) using 2017 USO prize money, or about another $146,000. $50,000 seems to me appropriate for her "pain and suffering" during the few weeks she was affected by the concussion, and another $50,000 should have been more than enough for her medical expenses for this kind of injury (minus what her insurance paid). So her total compensation for the incident should be at most 75%*(150,000+146,000+100,000), or a little less than $300,000, minus any medical costs covered by insurance and plus reasonable legal costs.

Instead, based on what most people say here, she will receive an obsene amount at least fifteen times more (and possibly fifty times more) than what would be fair for her injury, the equivalent of winning one to three grand slams and being set for life after a very minor incident against a suitable, rich plaintiff. This is a travesty in the American judicial system, where one can be lucky with a minor injury like this and milk it for much more than it is worth. This does not come without consequences. It will promote this culture of getting fat rewards for nothing to other players, who might want to also cash in in similar ways rather than earn their matches the hard way. It will probably instigate changes in the way USTA (and other tennis organizations) handle players - I won't be surprised if players aren't allowed to go anywhere on tournament grounds without two chaperones at all times, increasing costs and restricting players' freedom. In the end, the award money and the increased costs come directly out of the money Bouchard's fellow players and other USTA projects (like promoting tennis to kids and recreational players) will have - USTA is a non-profit, not an evil corporation, so Bouchard's greed and the U.S. legal system's incompetence mean less resources for those that need them far more than Bouchard does.
The USTA is hardly some poor charity organization free from controversy. It's a huge $200+ million organization where people like executive director of the board have a salary of over $1 million, and they've had conflicts of interest in the past as well. I highly doubt that this settlement will make a significant difference to their overall operations. No idea how this stuff is actually determined, but your analysis of the damages seems to make sense. The settlement value was probably closer to your value than some of the crazy numbers being thrown around here.

I'm also not sure that this will have a significant impact on other players or other tournaments. It was a rare and unlikely scenario to occur, I would be surprised if suddenly tournaments everywhere were upping security/escorts in response. In terms of players, I doubt anyone is very interested in getting into a 2 and a half year legal battle for an undetermined amount of money that isn't guaranteed. What this incident might do, however, is encourage the USTA to not leave dark, slippery death traps around when players are still using their facilities :shrug:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,709 Posts
So you wouldn't have sued if you fell due to the a wet floor? Who are you mad at exactly?
Did I say that the problem was that she sued? The problem was the way overblown amount of compensation that she's going to receive, which is caused by (a) juries hugely overestimating, in general, "pain and suffering" and punitive damages, in part because they don't realize (and are not told) the consequences of their actions and they think they are playing with house money they can freely give to the plaintiff; (b) the lesser but still present overestimation of actual damages, which is partly because unreasonable claims like "she could have beaten Serena" can be presented along with a manipulation of facts by sleazy lawyers rather than in the proper statistical context; and (c) the unreasonably lengthy and costly resolution process, which tacks on huge legal costs to what should have been a straightforward case.

In my opinion, a way for Bouchard to receive fair compensation for her likely losses in income and her pain should have been in place, in a manner that would have been fast, objective, and fair to both parties. The jury should make determinations like the degree of fault of each party, while neutral experts should make determinations like Bouchard's expected lost income and disability due to the fall, with minimal opportunity for lawyers of either side to muddy the waters. "Pain and suffering" should be on an objective scale for all people, not based on the plaintiff's income or the defendant's deep pockets. Punitive damages should not come into play at all unless there is evidence of malicious intent or a pattern of gross negligence, and they should never be awarded to the plaintiff in any case. Legal preparatory work that is way excessive relative to the complexity of the case (as in this case) should never be compensated by the losing party.

For the record, I've lived in the U.S. for decades, but now spend most my time in southern Europe, in a fringe member of the EU. Bouchard's lawsuit would be laughed out of court here. I actually fell due to a huge hole in a sidewalk on a poorly lit street, but I knew that suing either the municipality or the store that was next to that sidewalk's section would be a waste of time - I even paid my medical expenses for the fall myself, and I know several other people who broke legs etc. in similar situations. As bad as this is for the potential plaintiffs here, the situation in the US has crossed over to the other extreme and Bouchard's case illustrates it.
 
1481 - 1500 of 1578 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top