PDA

View Full Version : John Danks being sued


bigsoxfan420
08-29-2012, 01:36 PM
Looks like John "Sticky-icky" Danks is going to be busy this off-season, and not just rehabbing after surgery. He is being sued for some shenanigans that occurred at his home in 2010.

http://deadspin.com/5938927/john-danks-sued-for-hosting-some-brotherly-horseplay-that-ended-in-a-spinal-injury?tag=mlb

Domeshot17
08-29-2012, 01:40 PM
Being this is deadspin, is this actually true?

doublem23
08-29-2012, 01:42 PM
Being this is deadspin, is this actually true?

Since when is Deadspin not a reliable source?

Domeshot17
08-29-2012, 01:43 PM
Since when is Deadspin not a reliable source?

Is Deadspin reliable? I thought they were just a kind of a comedy website? I could be totally wrong, might be thinking of something else... if so sorry!

kittle42
08-29-2012, 01:48 PM
Is Deadspin reliable? I thought they were just a kind of a comedy website? I could be totally wrong, might be thinking of something else... if so sorry!

They're comedy kind of like The Daily Show is - it's all real news, but they present it humorously/mockingly, and the comments section really is where the comedy is.

But if an event is being reported on Deadspin, yes, it's happening.

salty99
08-29-2012, 01:51 PM
Maybe you were thinking of the Onion?

Domeshot17
08-29-2012, 01:59 PM
Maybe you were thinking of the Onion?

Ha, yes, sorry, mixed those 2 up!

DumpJerry
08-29-2012, 04:27 PM
Being this is deadspin, is this actually true?
It was reported in the Law Bulletin and it appears on the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's website.

Yes, it is true that a lawsuit has been filed naming, among others, John Danks as a defendant.

This won't keep him busy in the offseason.

skobabe8
08-29-2012, 05:12 PM
It was reported in the Law Bulletin and it appears on the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County's website.

Yes, it is true that a lawsuit has been filed naming, among others, John Danks as a defendant.

This won't keep him busy in the offseason.

It sounded bogus when I first read it.

BRDSR
08-29-2012, 05:43 PM
As an attorney (don't you hate when people start sentences like that?) I will say that the suit may have some merit, assuming he did prevent 911 calls AND the injury is more severe as a result. Basically, it depends.

Most likely, the injured party wants to sue someone with money.

skobabe8
08-29-2012, 05:57 PM
As an attorney (don't you hate when people start sentences like that?) I will say that the suit may have some merit, assuming he did prevent 911 calls AND the injury is more severe as a result. Basically, it depends.

Most likely, the injured party wants to sue someone with money.

Isn't it reasonable to think that they asked the injured guy 'Are you OK?', 'Do you want to stand up?', 'Should we go get this looked at?', etc., and he was maybe too embarrassed to request further attention?

DumpJerry
08-29-2012, 06:06 PM
As an attorney (don't you hate when people start sentences like that?) I will say that the suit may have some merit, assuming he did prevent 911 calls AND the injury is more severe as a result. Basically, it depends.

Most likely, the injured party wants to sue someone with money.
What is the standard of care he owed the guy?

BRDSR
08-29-2012, 06:23 PM
What is the standard of care he owed the guy?

It should just be a normal reasonable person standard. A higher standard can come into play in one's own home, but usually when the homeowner is aware of particularly hazardous aspects of the home.

Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice, particularly since I do not practice tort law. :smile:

voodoochile
08-29-2012, 07:46 PM
What is the standard of care he owed the guy?

Well if he did move the guy when he was suffering from an obvious back injury I'd think he'd be liable on some level. In addition they might be able to argue that because of his work as a professional athlete he has encountered back injuries in his years playing organized sports and thus should have known better how to deal with it.

DumpJerry
08-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Well if he did move the guy when he was suffering from an obvious back injury I'd think he'd be liable on some level. In addition they might be able to argue that because of his work as a professional athlete he has encountered back injuries in his years playing organized sports and thus should have known better how to deal with it.
Danks did not cause the injury. He owes him no duty. The insurance company for the condo association will settle this (I assume they are in the common elements and not Danks' unit in which case his insurance carrier will handle it).

thomas35forever
08-29-2012, 10:50 PM
I just hope he has insurance to cover this. In either case, why wait until now to take legal action?

DumpJerry
08-30-2012, 07:36 AM
I just hope he has insurance to cover this. In either case, why wait until now to take legal action?
He has insurance. But it's not his insurance, this probably happened on a LCE, so it's the Association's policy that covers it. There is a policy in place.

Kilroy
08-30-2012, 10:51 AM
...why wait until now to take legal action?

Because Danks is in the first year of a 65 million dollar contract?

DumpJerry
08-30-2012, 10:53 AM
I just hope he has insurance to cover this. In either case, why wait until now to take legal action?
Statute of limitation is two years. They could not work out a settlement.

kittle42
08-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Because Danks is in the first year of a 65 million dollar contract?

Highly, highly doubtful. Much more likely that it simply took this much time for them to negotiate unsuccessfully.

thehawkeroo
08-31-2012, 09:10 PM
It can't be good if he didnt call 911.