Child injured by Britt Reid has permanent brain injuries

[SizzleBuzz]

2 hours ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I'm not saying there is or isn't a policy in place. But you can't just look at the franchise and say they have no responsibility without knowing what rules are in place.

Too often though, from my experience, will just add people to a lawsuit and let the judge sort it out. Merit of a case has little to do with someone working for a cut of the settlement.

Understood and no worries.  I certainly didn't say the Chiefs won't get any scrutiny, nor did I execute a series of "what-if-gymnastics" in an attempt to put them into the crosshairs (as several others did). 

You are spot on that it's almost a certainty that the family lawyer will find some rationale (flawed or otherwise) for attaching the Chiefs to the situation.

On the subject of "what-if-gymnastics"...it does work both ways

1.  What-if the car that ran out of gas wasn't completely out of the right-of-way?

2.  What-if the car that ran out of gas had a low battery and its hazard-flashers weren't working properly?

3.  Why-did the responding vehicle park in front?  Couldn't see the out-of-gas vehicle in time to stop behind?

4.  What-if the responding vehicle was also parked in the right-of-way?

5.  What-if the area where the accident took place was dark and unlighted?

6.  What-if the children (ages 4 and 5) in the responding vehicle were not properly restrained in federally approved child-safety-seats as required by MO/KS law?

7.  What-if Reid really did only have 2 or 3 beers?  Looks like he goes at least 265lbs...prob wouldn't produce much on the B.A.C. Richter Scale.

8.  What-if  the officer who filled out the report actually checked the "UNK" (vs. Yes, No or N/A) box in the "ALCOHOL USE" section of the official crash report?

So many questions to be answered...

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by SizzleBuzz

[Snake]

20 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

It's unlikely the Chiefs had a bar set up in the endzone of their bubble. 

If he kept a cooler in the bed of his truck and he and a couple others drank 2 beers each on the tailgate in the coaches parking lot at the end of a long day technically he'd be at "the facility" but in no way would the team would be complicit.

The scenario you describe there in SC, I'd be curious to see a real-life  example of that...?

It's going to be very interesting to see how this one plays out...

 

There are plenty of real life examples. Just look at the court docket. The one that started it was a HP officer who was hit by a DD. He then sued the bar and forced them into bankruptcy because the court decided that serving one drink to a patron and not looking intoxicated wasn't enough. 

Also if people knew he was drunk or a drinks they are just as liable and KC should be too. I don't know a job that let's you get intoxicated at work for numerous reasons but one being they would get sued. 

[manu4t]

21 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

They can sue KC, but won't get anywhere. 

Maybe, maybe not.  We dont know all the facts.  If they arent dismissed on summary judgment, there is a significant chance a jury could hit them bc of deep pockets and a VERY sympathetic plaintiff.

People sue companies all the time and companies pay a lot of money to keep things quiet and out of court.  Like it or not, that is our civil justice system.

[manu4t]

18 hours ago, LegioX said:

Knowing someone has issues with substance abuse and hiring them is one thing. Be liable for someone else’s screw up that is in no correlation to their company or franchise is another. They have no chance in hell on getting any money from suing KC organization.

1. they did not tell him to wreck

2. they did not knowingly supply him with impairing substance that could contribute to the wreck.

3. They are not responsible for his actions that are completely outside their franchise.

case closed 

I defend large companies all the time in court so I can assure you based on doing this for over 20 years this is hardly a "closed case". 

To your points -

1.  That is irrelevant because it is not a theory they can or would pursue against KC.  They would sue the insurer of the car Reid was driving (and get the policy limits undoubtedly). 

2. - that is dram shop act vs a bar if he was overserved,  so agreed there. 

3. - Incorrect. If they called him to come in to work or he was drinking with other coaches while discussing work, yes they can be held liable under multiple theories.  If the vehicle was owned/rented/leased/maintained by KC, they can sue.  If he was reimbursed for his mileage coming to or from work, they can sue KC. If a happy hour was coordinated by KC staff and he was drinking there, they can pursue KC. We can speculate all day but we dont know all the facts.  But there are ways to potentially pursue KC, these are just some of them.

If the injured child can be put in front of 12 jurors (ie, they cannot get themselves removed from a lawsuit on summary judgment), I can assure you they will settle long before that happens.  People with cases far worse than this sue companies all the time knowing they will settle out of court simply because of the horrible optics if the case is in front of a jury (and in the news).  Does it mean they will win?  No.  But they dont have to win - they just have to get in front of 12 sympathetic people to get KC to settle out of court. 

[LegioX]

17 minutes ago, manu4t said:

I defend large companies all the time in court so I can assure you based on doing this for over 20 years this is hardly a "closed case". 

To your points -

1.  That is irrelevant because it is not a theory they can or would pursue against KC.  They would sue the insurer of the car Reid was driving (and get the policy limits undoubtedly). 

2. - that is dram shop act vs a bar if he was overserved,  so agreed there. 

3. - Incorrect. If they called him to come in to work or he was drinking with other coaches while discussing work, yes they can be held liable under multiple theories.  If the vehicle was owned/rented/leased/maintained by KC, they can sue.  If he was reimbursed for his mileage coming to or from work, they can sue KC. If a happy hour was coordinated by KC staff and he was drinking there, they can pursue KC. We can speculate all day but we dont know all the facts.  But there are ways to potentially pursue KC, these are just some of them.

If the injured child can be put in front of 12 jurors (ie, they cannot get themselves removed from a lawsuit on summary judgment), I can assure you they will settle long before that happens.  People with cases far worse than this sue companies all the time knowing they will settle out of court simply because of the horrible optics if the case is in front of a jury (and in the news).  Does it mean they will win?  No.  But they dont have to win - they just have to get in front of 12 sympathetic people to get KC to settle out of court. 

My opinion was based entirely on him acting and making decisions alone and independent from anything KC related. Yes it changes the entire landscape if KC officials were with him and “knowingly” let him drive while possibly under the influence of an impairing substance. Again like you said this is all speculation. 

[pantherclaw]

3 hours ago, manu4t said:

Maybe, maybe not.  We dont know all the facts.  If they arent dismissed on summary judgment, there is a significant chance a jury could hit them bc of deep pockets and a VERY sympathetic plaintiff.

People sue companies all the time and companies pay a lot of money to keep things quiet and out of court.  Like it or not, that is our civil justice system.

KC Didn't contribute to the accident in any way. 

Say what you want, but that is ignorance grasping at straws. 

[SizzleBuzz]

6 hours ago, Snake said:

There are plenty of real life examples. Just look at the court docket. The one that started it was a HP officer who was hit by a DD. He then sued the bar and forced them into bankruptcy because the court decided that serving one drink to a patron and not looking intoxicated wasn't enough. 

Also if people knew he was drunk or a drinks they are just as liable and KC should be too. I don't know a job that let's you get intoxicated at work for numerous reasons but one being they would get sued. 

blah blah blah...

[SizzleBuzz]

4 hours ago, manu4t said:

I defend large companies all the time in court so I can assure you based on doing this for over 20 years this is hardly a "closed case". 

To your points -

1.  That is irrelevant because it is not a theory they can or would pursue against KC.  They would sue the insurer of the car Reid was driving (and get the policy limits undoubtedly). 

2. - that is dram shop act vs a bar if he was overserved,  so agreed there. 

3. - Incorrect. If they called him to come in to work or he was drinking with other coaches while discussing work, yes they can be held liable under multiple theories.  If the vehicle was owned/rented/leased/maintained by KC, they can sue.  If he was reimbursed for his mileage coming to or from work, they can sue KC. If a happy hour was coordinated by KC staff and he was drinking there, they can pursue KC. We can speculate all day but we dont know all the facts.  But there are ways to potentially pursue KC, these are just some of them.

If the injured child can be put in front of 12 jurors (ie, they cannot get themselves removed from a lawsuit on summary judgment), I can assure you they will settle long before that happens.  People with cases far worse than this sue companies all the time knowing they will settle out of court simply because of the horrible optics if the case is in front of a jury (and in the news).  Does it mean they will win?  No.  But they dont have to win - they just have to get in front of 12 sympathetic people to get KC to settle out of court. 

Is MO a Contributory Negligence state?

 

Or is it a Comparative Negligence state?

[manu4t]

4 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

KC Didn't contribute to the accident in any way. 

Say what you want, but that is ignorance grasping at straws. 

I am a licensed attorney and not in the habit of making ignorant statements, unlike you. 

So where did you go to law school? Answer quickly or go to the back of the line and I will waste more time embarrassing you later.

[manu4t]

4 hours ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Is MO a Contributory Negligence state?

 

Or is it a Comparative Negligence state?

Pure comparative. But @pantherclawcan answer that, right...?

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, manu4t said:

I am a licensed attorney

I'm a non-licensed attorney spokesperson.

 

 

 

No, I'm not

[SizzleBuzz]

7 minutes ago, manu4t said:

Pure comparative. But @pantherclawcan answer that, right...?

Have you read the police report?

[manu4t]

11 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Have you read the police report?

No. Why?

Impacts the criminal more than civil side........

 

[SizzleBuzz]

1 hour ago, manu4t said:

No. Why?

Impacts the criminal more than civil side........

 

Just curious.

Some interesting info in it that isn't being reported anywhere in the press.

Key factors in the report seem to indicate (a layman's read) significant blame is to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the owners of the two vehicles parked in traffic which were involved in this unfortunate, avoidable, and horrible-for-all accident.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by SizzleBuzz