Mark Sanchez stabbed in Indy

Calheel said:
Sanchez is not Captain Hazelwood on the Exxon Valdeez. Fox has no duty of care to members of the general public to supervise its alcoholic independent contractors.
Click to expand...
What if Fox reimbursed him for “meals?” Including alcohol? What if Fox gave him a huge per diem?
 
Zoo_View said:
What if Fox reimbursed him for “meals?” Including alcohol? What if Fox gave him a huge per diem?
Click to expand...
To have dram shop liability, you have to actually serve the alcohol, and even then, it is not strict liability for any accident caused by a drunk. Depending on the state, there has to be a certain level of scienter to show that the patron was knowingly overserved.

There is no way to expand dram shop liability to a per diem paid by a corporation to its wealthy independent contractor announcers. You do not owe a duty of care to the general public to refrain from reimbursing the cost of alcohol.
 
rodoheel said:
Meh, given that Sanchez was on a work trip, Plaintiff's attorney wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least try to rope Fox in. Another pocket (with plenty of insurance) is another pocket.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't fault the plaintiff's attorney. Sue everyone and let God sort it out. But I don't see this case getting anywhere with Fox. And insurance will be difficult given the intentional misconduct involved.
 
Calheel said:
To have dram shop liability, you have to actually serve the alcohol, and even then, it is not strict liability for any accident caused by a drunk. Depending on the state, there has to be a certain level of scienter to show that the patron was knowingly overserved.

There is no way to expand dram shop liability to a per diem paid by a corporation to its wealthy independent contractor announcers. You do not owe a duty of care to the general public to refrain from reimbursing the cost of alcohol.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the legal explanation.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
You're probably going to end up being right. Sanchez is 38 years old and has never had a brush with the law that we know of and suddenly decides to beat the crap out of a 69 year old man. Seems like if he was a violent drunk, it would have come out by now.
Click to expand...
or Sanchez was an entitled MAGAt who thought he should have domain over the old dude, who didn't listen and a drunk Sanchez who already is sensitive sees a low risk opportunity (random place, old man) to be a tough guy and his drunk logic led to this terribleness.
 
Calheel said:
Oh, I don't fault the plaintiff's attorney. Sue everyone and let God sort it out. But I don't see this case getting anywhere with Fox. And insurance will be difficult given the intentional misconduct involved.
Click to expand...
The claim against Fox, though, isnt based on intentional misconduct, it sounds in negligence.

Given the high-profile nature of the case I’d be surprised if they can’t get something out of Fox’s insurers to settle, even if it’s not that much. But maybe Fox takes a shot at a 12b6 motion first.
 
rodoheel said:
The claim against Fox, though, isnt based on intentional misconduct, it sounds in negligence.

Given the high-profile nature of the case I’d be surprised if they can’t get something out of Fox’s insurers to settle, even if it’s not that much. But maybe Fox takes a shot at a 12b6 motion first.
Click to expand...
Negligence requires a duty though. I agree with Cal this one would be tough to get past a MTD.
 
lawtig02 said:
Negligence requires a duty though. I agree with Cal this one would be tough to get past a MTD.
Click to expand...
I don't know Indiana (?) law on the subject of negligent hiring or negligent supervision but you guys may be right (and candidly I haven't actually read the complaint). Just thought it was perfectly logical, from the standpoint of a plaintiff's attorney, to get every deep-pocket defendant you can in the case and go from there. If Indiana is anything like NC, it's not always a particularly easy thing to convince a trial-court judge to dismiss anything on a 12b6 motion, even when you think the claim is obviously deficient.
 
Would it change the calculus if Sanchez had other incidents in the past that Fox both knew about and actively helped keep quiet? I mean that's not out of the realm of possibility. Does that make a fishing expedition here worth it?
 
Zoo_View said:
What if Fox reimbursed him for “meals?” Including alcohol? What if Fox gave him a huge per diem?
Click to expand...

I have a company gas card. If I get drunk and run over someone, would my company be liable because they provided the gas?
 
dukeman92 said:
I have a company gas card. If I get drunk and run over someone, would my company be liable because they provided the gas?
Click to expand...
Good question. If it's a company car I think the company would definitely have some liability. This is dcphx's and the attorneys on the board time to shine.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Good question. If it's a company car I think the company would definitely have some liability. This is dcphx's and the attorneys on the board time to shine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the company car situation would potentially give rise to a negligent entrustment claim. I don't think a per diem would be viewed the same as a company car. The only way I could envision a negligence claim against Fox in this scenario is if (a) Fox knew Sanchez drank to excess, (b) Fox knew that Sanchez was prone to violent or dangerous actions when he was drunk, and (c) Fox's per diem or reimbursement policy covers alcohol. Seems highly unlikely, but I guess it's worth lobbing in a claim to see what happens.
 
I’m having difficulty coming up with a fantasy football team name inspired by this incident. Mark the Knife? St. Sanchez of the Knife? Directed by M. Knife Sanchez?

Help me, ZZL.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Good question. If it's a company car I think the company would definitely have some liability. This is dcphx's and the attorneys on the board time to shine.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why many companies provide a monthly car allowance to employees who in the past would have qualified for a "company car." You give the employee a monthly stipend, they buy, register and insure the car in their name and reimburse them for mileage when they use the vehicle for company business, so if there is an accident when they aren't on company business their insurance company is on the hook.
 
Calheel said:
To have dram shop liability, you have to actually serve the alcohol, and even then, it is not strict liability for any accident caused by a drunk. Depending on the state, there has to be a certain level of scienter to show that the patron was knowingly overserved.

There is no way to expand dram shop liability to a per diem paid by a corporation to its wealthy independent contractor announcers. You do not owe a duty of care to the general public to refrain from reimbursing the cost of alcohol.
Click to expand...
Good summary. Sounds to me like there is no likely legal case to win here. I think they are fishing to see if there is a PR case that will get them a settlement. It doesn't hurt to put a line in the water and see what it brings in... worms are cheap. Granted, I don't know anything about the guy's attorney. He may have hired somebody way over his head based on him selling the guy that he can go after Fox and get him REALLY BIG MONEY...
 
nrsair said:
I’m having difficulty coming up with a fantasy football team name inspired by this incident. Mark the Knife? St. Sanchez of the Knife? Directed by M. Knife Sanchez?

Help me, ZZL.
Click to expand...
The wind sprints behind a bar drunk at midnight is the comedy zone you need to mine for a name
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top