Monte is getting sued??

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:53 am

Monte's getting sued.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... news04.txt

Catsfan · Post by **Catsfan** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:18 am

HA HA HA HA.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:40 am

HelenaCat95 wrote:Monte's getting sued.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006 ... news04.txt

Another horrible Grizzle attack near Glacier Park.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:49 am

Broke Back 'Monte'?

Couldn't resist.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:54 am

anyone else think it's weird that the dude had the strength in his back to bomb a half-courter, but not to give monte a piggy-back? half court in college isn't short, and it would seem to me that a guy worrying about a previous back injury shouldn't be doing any launching of basketballs!

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:56 am

whitetrashgriz wrote:anyone else think it's weird that the dude had the strength in his back to bomb a half-courter, but not to give monte a piggy-back? half court in college isn't short, and it would seem to me that a guy worrying about a previous back injury shouldn't be doing any launching of basketballs!

I was thinking that same thing. I wonder if this was filed before or after the old Monte his the "big time."

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:01 pm

CARDIAC_CATS wrote:Broke Back 'Monte'? Couldn't resist.

Now thats funny

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:05 pm

Yeah, I have no idea how the law works in this sort of thing, but it seems like the expectations that I would have of a guy who just made a half-court shot wouldn't preclude you from doing what Monte did.

If he pounced on a lady in a walker, that's one thing, but it sounds like this guy was certainly acting in a way that didn't suggest that he had a back problem.

I guess it comes down to whether MT law accepts a "reasonable expectation" argument or whether it is more a matter of "strict liability" (and apologies to attorneys for butchering these terms).

Post by **rtb** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:08 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Yeah, I have no idea how the law works in this sort of thing, but it seems like the expectations that I would have of a guy who just made a half-court shot wouldn't preclude you from doing what Monte did.

If he pounced on a lady in a walker, that's one thing, but it sounds like this guy was certainly acting in a way that didn't suggest that he had a back problem.

I guess it comes down to whether MT law accepts a "reasonable expectation" argument or whether it is more a matter of "strict liability" (and apologies to attorneys for butchering these terms).

Yeah, if you are able to sink a half-court shot with the "back problem" then you are obviously pretty healthy. I am not saying that having a large mascot on your back couldn't re-injure you, but come on.

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:19 pm

I don’t agree.
Throwing a basketball and having a 150-pound plus person jump on your back are two different things. I could throw a basketball and I don’t have back problems but if I were not expecting a person to jump on my back I would probably be injured too.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:27 pm

The question at hand is simply were those named in the suit negligent? Their is a special relationship between the service/program provider and the user/participant that requires that the provider protect the individual from exposure to unreasonable risks that may cause injury. Monte has relationship inherent to those involved with the sporting event. He was most likely paid by either the University or the promoters of the event meaning Monte was an employee, making those in charge of the event responsible for the willful acts by an employee. Monte will not be held responsible, but the promoters and UM will have to take the case to court. Of course the tricky part to this case is finding evidence that supports the plaintiff's claims.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:14 pm

CARDIAC_CATS wrote:Broke Back 'Monte'? Couldn't resist.

Thats mean...funny as hell, but mean.

spider · Post by **spider** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:24 pm

G.W.Bush wrote:The question at hand is simply were those named in the suit negligent? Their is a special relationship between the service/program provider and the user/participant that requires that the provider protect the individual from exposure to unreasonable risks that may cause injury. Monte has relationship inherent to those involved with the sporting event. He was most likely paid by either the University or the promoters of the event meaning Monte was an employee, making those in charge of the event responsible for the willful acts by an employee. Monte will not be held responsible, but the promoters and UM will have to take the case to court. Of course the tricky part to this case is finding evidence that supports the plaintiff's claims.

If I were the plaintiff's attorney I would not sue based on a negligence theory. I would simply sue for damages based on battery. Monte intentionally jumped on the plaintiff's back, the act was unprivileged and resulted in harmful or offensive contact. Monte/UM can still be culpable even if Monte did not intend to harm the man. They won't have to prove any negligence. It does not matter that the man had a previously injured back. You take your victim as you find him.

The University will definitely claim that shooting the basketball gave the impression that the plaintiff was in good health. I hope their argument is successful, the man should not have been a participant if his back was in such a condition.

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:40 pm

I guess I feel for this guy. He went to a basketball game and shot a basket he didn’t give an open invite for someone to jump on his back. My little brother is in very good shape but he has been told that he has the knees of a 70 year old and he is 22. If someone jumped on his back and surprised him he would fall the ground. I don think we should all assume someone has a health problem but....I guess I just see where this guy is coming form.

WeedKillinCat · Post by **WeedKillinCat** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:19 pm

I had to go to school because I had a bulged disc and could no longer do work that was physically demanding. Yes it was painful, but I did take the basketball class and played some pick up games at the gym. If a guy the size of Monte jumped on my back unexpectedly, I am pretty sure it would've been even more painful. I feel for the guy.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:45 pm

spider wrote:If I were the plaintiff's attorney I would not sue based on a negligence theory. I would simply sue for damages based on battery. Monte intentionally jumped on the plaintiff's back, the act was unprivileged and resulted in harmful or offensive contact. Monte/UM can still be culpable even if Monte did not intend to harm the man. They won't have to prove any negligence. It does not matter that the man had a previously injured back. You take your victim as you find him.

I disagree, spider.

Think back to first semester Torts. Who is the deep pocket here? Not Monte -- the deep pocket is UM. Thus, any theory under which you sue has to be one for which UM is culpable, and not merely Monte.

What you said about Monte being culpable regardless of his intent to cause actual harm is correct; as long as he had intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, he is liable under a battery theory, and is thus responsible for whatever harm results. Remember, though, that battery is an intentional tort, and Monte's relationship with the University cannot be used as a basis for imputing liability for intentional torts committed by Monte to the University. (Think of the classic bar exam question that every Torts professor uses, about the over-zealous bouncer who beats up a customer at a bar -- ask yourself why liability is imputed to the employer in that case, and why this case isn't analogous).

Thus, while a battery suit against Monte personally would be fine as an alternate theory of liability against Monte, the plaintiff still has to make its prima facie negligence case against UM in order to hold UM liable.

Just my .02 worth...

--GL

Post by **rtb** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:49 pm

Grizlaw wrote:Just my .02 worth...

--GL

Just two cents for legal advice?

I thought you would be sending us all a bill for at least $500 for reading that post!

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:57 pm

rtb wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:Just my .02 worth...

--GL
Just two cents for legal advice? I thought you would be sending us all a bill for at least $500 for reading that post!

Oh sorry; I forgot to add the standard disclaimer:

The above post does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be relied upon by anyone.

Since rtb has indicated that he does want legal advice on the above matters, though, my opinion can be found in my prior post, and your bill is in the mail.

--GL

spider · Post by **spider** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:59 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
spider wrote:If I were the plaintiff's attorney I would not sue based on a negligence theory. I would simply sue for damages based on battery. Monte intentionally jumped on the plaintiff's back, the act was unprivileged and resulted in harmful or offensive contact. Monte/UM can still be culpable even if Monte did not intend to harm the man. They won't have to prove any negligence. It does not matter that the man had a previously injured back. You take your victim as you find him.

I disagree, spider.

Think back to first semester Torts. Who is the deep pocket here? Not Monte -- the deep pocket is UM. Thus, any theory under which you sue has to be one for which UM is culpable, and not merely Monte.

What you said about Monte being culpable regardless of his intent to cause actual harm is correct; as long as he had intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, he is liable under a battery theory, and is thus responsible for whatever harm results. Remember, though, that battery is an intentional tort, and Monte's relationship with the University cannot be used as a basis for imputing liability for intentional torts committed by Monte to the University. (Think of the classic bar exam question that every Torts professor uses, about the over-zealous bouncer who beats up a customer at a bar -- ask yourself why liability is imputed to the employer in that case, and why this case isn't analogous).

Thus, while a battery suit against Monte personally would be fine as an alternate theory of liability against Monte, the plaintiff still has to make its prima facie negligence case against UM in order to hold UM liable.

Just my .02 worth...

--GL

Points well taken.

If I remember, UM can be held liable for intentional torts committed by Monte (Respondeat Superior). It will be more difficult to impose respondeat superior in an intentional torts case, but I'm almost positive it can be done.

Is Monte and employee of the University? What does the general public believe? I don't know. It certainly could be argued that the tort was committed in the course of Monte's employment.

I don't know for sure. Your understanding is far greater than mine. Someday....someday.

Monte is getting sued??

Monte is getting sued??

Re: Monte is getting sued??