True enough, but in this day & age, a guy running around in public his underwear is perceived to be worse (legally and morally) than any of of the nekked streakers of decades past.
You should save your outrage for something a bit more outrageous. People have the right to speak to lawyers. If that right is ever taken away, that would be a good time to express outrage. However, by the time we lose that right, we will have likely also lost the right to criticize the government.
The law firm has already won. They paid a few hundred dollars to issue a press release and got some publicity out of it. It's a safe bet that they do not issue a news release every time they sign a new client.
I was at a Blue Jays game this week and noticed these guys have a giant ad in the stadium. Maybe they have one at BC Place as well and the Faux Streaker didn't even have to look beyond the field to find them.
Indeed. But keep in mind as well that there's light years of difference between initiating a legal action and defending yourself against one.
I don't know about "light years". In a private dispute between two parties, one is called the plaintiff and the other is the defendant. They both have to satisfy the same standard of proof (called "balance of probabilities"), unlike a criminal matter where the Crown has to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." They are both subject to pay the costs of the other side if they lose, which serves as a strong disincentive both to stretch out the proceeding and to bring frivolous actions in the first place.
As for your earlier post about society having to pay: Society decided centuries ago (at least British society) that it is preferable to have a publicly-funded system where private parties can settle disputes, rather than the alternative. Alternative being duels, murder, etc. Take away state-sponsored enforcement of private rights, and the consequences would be dramatic. e.g. How would you ever hope to enforce a contract with no access to a court system? Why would anyone bother to keep their property safe so that visitors do not get injured on it?
It's these oddball cases that get people's knickers in a knot. And as I mentioned, if they have no merit, the plaintiff will not only lose the case but additional money as well. If they do have merit, then by definition the plaintiff deserves some compensation.
“Oddball” case, that does seem to be the appropriate description in this case for sure.
Of course we are all glad the guy didn’t die, but that would have added a lot of intrigue to this case if he had of. Which as I say, I’m very glad he didn’t.
Kinda odd he hasn't been identified yet or has gone looking for a proper news release with full disclosure of who he is . Maybe he's not the right guy at all and just someone off the street with a head injury .
They might want to release that if they want some credibility .
Maybe a good reason is of course is that running around like a buffoon maybe a regular day at the office for the guy .
Maybe the circus left town without him .
My considered opinion is that the onus to prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt" should also be on the plaintiff in a civil suit. He is after all the plaintiff, i.e. the one who brought forth the case.
I have no objection to there being a mechanism to settle civil suits, enforce contracts, whatever. I merely think that the burden of proof in these cases should be on the plaintiff, and that there should be some serious downside beyond merely the cost of the suit to the plaintiff if he fails to prove his case.
Moreover this cost should absolutely be shared by the plaintiff's legal counsel. The present situation where there is no downside to counsel is an abomination. Balance is needed; if money can be made from a suit, it should also be possible to lose such money.
It's these oddball cases that get people's knickers in a knot. And as I mentioned, if they have no merit, the plaintiff will not only lose the case but additional money as well.Yes, but his lawyers will not, which is a situation that bothers me immensely. Why should the lawyers be in a no-lose situation?
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but it's a lower burden than for a criminal case. In a criminal case, the defendant's freedom is at stake, so it's the highest possible standard.
Lawyers stand to lose their time, which is really all they have from a business point of view. If a lawyer works 10 cases in a year, all on contingency, and loses them all with no settlement, her income for the year is zero. In theory, that motivates her to take on contingency fee cases only if there is at least a decent chance of winning or settling. Or alternatively, she could take on a case for the publicity value (like this one?), but eventually she needs billings, and not just publicity.
I guess you're entitled to your opinions about balance and punishing lawyers and whatever else. Hundreds of years of common law says otherwise. (Also the movie Erin Brockovich)
#1 is totally Wrong
#2 there is no law as you state. However there is a city ordinance.
#3 Was that proven.
#4 Correction ‘’ reasonable action should be taken ‘’
Check CFL regulations Players should avoid contact or altercation with any fans, leave to stadium security people. NOT an exact quote.
Young’s act is going to be under a heavy challenge.
Four strong points, especially 2, 3 & 4. Even if local security had caught up to the streaker and brought him down - if reasonable force was exceeded (judicial decision btw) then the guy has a case for damages - even though he broke several laws/ordinances in breaching the field.
My guess is its settled out of court. The guy might actually have a job - revelation of his identity could lead to firing or suspension at work, plus a general shunning in the Vancouver community. Highest chances of an out of court settlement where streaker's name is kept out of the headlines!
Precisely. This is clearly another one of the many cases where the "prudent man" rule should apply. Quite simply a prudent man should/would expect that he'd get a good butt kicking if he went running around in his underwear in front of a couple of dozen large ill-tempered men. So he got off easily with nothing but one good solid bump.
But its not. I agree with you. Look at the criminal court cases. As of yesterday 60 major civil
cases against the government of Canada for not helping new immigrates who became Canadian citizens, then went back to there home country area and committed offensives or not, but why go back.
Your now Canadian. Always an excuse.
Medicare is a backup and then file a law suit against government for lack of review and support.
These 60 case are asking for more then 10 million each. Check every day the list grows longer.