Jump to content

Adam G

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adam G

  • Birthday 09/22/1978

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    River North

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Sox Minor League Affiliate
    Birmingham Barons (AA)
  • What do you like about Soxtalk?
    Trade rumors
  • Favorite Sox player
  • Favorite Sox minor leaguer
  • Favorite Sox moment
    Bo's homer
  • Favorite Former Sox Player
    Carlton Fisk

Adam G's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. I wonder if the Blue Jays will make us take Vernon Wells' awful contract.
  2. QUOTE (GREEDY @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) So they sued a snow plow company for plowing snow? http://www.cliffordlaw.com/news/attorneys-...now-or-leave-it
  3. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) I'm guessing if this guy just went to the Sox and said, hey, can you just pay the medical bill and we'll call it even... they'd do it, and all would be settled without having to sue. Depending on the bills, you're absolutely right. Most property insurance policies have a $5,000 med pay provision. The insurance will give that up without a fight as long as it's reasonably certain that you suffered the injury on the premises. It will become a bigger problem if the bills are huge.
  4. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. Did you see my link with all the personal injury suits against the White Sox in Cook County alone? The release is not binding, period. You want to know why the release is printed on the back of the ticket? To make people think that they can't sue. Judging by your position, it works.
  5. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Sure it does. Just because you dont read the fine print doesnt mean it isnt binding. They put that stuff onto the ticket specifically for lawsuits like this one. Not reading the contract doesnt make you not liable. Does putting up a "Beware of Dangerous Dog" sign on your fence protect you if your dog mauls somebody? No, all it does is show you were on notice that you had a dangerous dog.
  6. QUOTE (GREEDY @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Institute "you lose, you pay court costs and lawyer fees" into the USA and frivolous lawsuits like this one go bye, bye. Frivolous is a word that lawyers and lay people define differently. To a lay person, a frivolous suit is one that they don't like, typically only politically conservative people toss this definition around. To lawyers, a frivolous suit is one that has no basis in fact or law. This suit is obviously not frivolous. Also fyi, frivolous suits are sanctionable under FRCP 11 and Section 1927 of the U.S. Code. There's already deterrence built into the system.
  7. QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) Actually, wouldn't the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, be negligent? The Sox just rent there. I don't know, I'm just asking. Since that's a state entity, plaintiff will have to get around the state tort immunity statute. To do that, he'll have to show that the state willfully and wantonly (term of art, obviously) caused the harm. That's not happening. His doctor and any eyewitnesses. It could also be a pre-existing condition, although the incident could have exacerbated it.
  8. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) All I am saying is this case is not as clear cut as people are making it out to be. Hinshaw or whoever else is defending the Sox will settle this case. It will depend on the injury and the medical bills.
  9. QUOTE (tommy @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) Doesn't the back of the ticket say organization is not responsibly of injuries that happen during the game, by baseballs, bats, etc. Wouldn't that be enough to have the case dismissed? Not typically. It's at the judge's discretion to determine whether the plaintiff understood the waiver, appreciated the risk, etc. In my experience, and ironically enough, waivers are more likely to hold up when the plaintiff is a lawyer. Hard for a lawyer to argue that he/she didn't understand.
  10. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) It would be like the Adenhart family suing the drunken driver and his insurance company (hopefully he had coverage) for $100 million, projecting that's how much money Nick would have earned for his family had he not been killed at age 22...although I am sure the insurance company involved is probably pretty nervous about just such a lawsuit. If it was just an accident, that's one thing, but the added elements of fleeing the scene and drunk driving push it into another category of actionable offense/cause. The drunk's insurance company will tender the policy, no questions asked. Their liability is capped, liability and damages are clear. If the policy was for more than $500,000, I'd be surprised.
  11. Why plaintiff's counsel would want this in federal court is beyond me. And for what it's worth, the Sox get sued all the time. https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcou...+sox&CDate=
  12. QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 9, 2008 -> 09:11 AM) Actually since the company is in bankruptcy they may be able to get more deals done then if Zell was making the decisions. As long as there is a solid business reason for the transaction the court appointed trustee will allow it especially if it increases the odds of the company netting a larger profit. The team isn't in bankruptcy and the BK trustee has no say over any of this. The Trib's filing does not effect the Cubs, from a legal standpoint.
  13. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) I have a question for Crede's crew. In their prime, perfectly healthy. Which would you rather have on your team. 1.) Robin Ventura or 2.) Joe Crede I think they're pretty comparable offensively, with Ventura hitting for a little better average and Crede having a little more power. Defense, give me Crede.
  14. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 7, 2008 -> 02:04 PM) If you want to move Konerko because he will be a 5 and 10 guy sure I can understand. If you want to move Konerko because you are a Crede-fanboy and will trade anyone, and Jingle the lineup because you have this fantasy that he really really likes it here. And then you completely suspend belief and think that Boras and the sox will come up with a long time deal. I think you will wind up sad and confused in a bit. Whew! Good thing I don't think that! We're kind of up a creek without paddle with regards to Crede because he hasn't proven to have a ton of value on the trade market due to his injury and free agent status. Might as well hang onto him because I think he will have a good season and help us. As for Konerko, he's got some value but age is going to start creeping up on him sometime soon. Anaheim still seems like the most likely trade partner, maybe getting Kendrick and Santana for him? It seems to me that would make the team better this year and in the future.
  15. Move Konerko to Anaheim while he is ripping the cover off the ball. Put Fields at first, leave Swisher in left.
  • Create New...