Nyheim Hines is suing the person who hit him on a jetski

[Doctor Duck]

On 9/7/2023 at 4:53 PM, julian said:

If the person was operating under the influence then yes suing seems appropriate but if they weren’t, that’s an unfortunate accident.

 

 You assume risk with you ur actions everyday and some dude who loses control of a jet ski seems like an accident, in fairness it wasn’t me getting my knees twisted the opposite direction and if so I may feel differently.

Bulloney...sure DUI will add to someone's chance of not paying attention to what they are doing, but it's not a prerequisite for irresponsibility. You could be driving (or skiing) too fast to respond in time, distracted by your phone, whatever. Point is you weren't paying attention and you caused the accident booze or no booze. Every accident I caused in my 20's (before I wised up) was because I was rushing around too damn fast for the road conditions. No booze involved ever and yes it was my own damn fault.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Pretty sure this is what insurance is for…that’s a much deeper pocket than whoever the named defendant is, I’d wager. Imho, our society at large is too litigious (sometimes unavoidable), and many times disputes could be handled more cheaply and quickly by pre-lit dispute resolution means.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Because they have forms you sign absolving them of responsibility for an accident caused solely by the actions of the renter. 

 

maybe the other guy was obviously intoxicated.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Maybe the other guy was obviously intoxicated.

 

Obviously there is no proof he was when he signed the forms.  Otherwise they would also have been sued.  I seriously doubt this was an oversight by Hines' attorney.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Obviously there is no proof he was when he signed the forms.  Otherwise they would also have been sued.  I seriously doubt this was an oversight by Hines' attorney.

 

Well, no one has been sued yet.

 

Also, you missed this, from the report earlier this week:

 

“Nyheim, who has his boating license and was likely traveling at about 10 miles per hour was not cited and has engaged my office to hold the necessary parties accountable for ending his season and costing him potentially many millions of dollars.  Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so are questions my office will be looking into very closely in the coming weeks. I look forward to doing everything I can to put the pieces back together for Nyheim, who is a terrific person and client.”.....

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Well, no one has been sued yet.

 

Also, you missed this, from the report earlier this week:

 

“Nyheim, who has his boating license and was likely traveling at about 10 miles per hour was not cited and has engaged my office to hold the necessary parties accountable for ending his season and costing him potentially many millions of dollars.  Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so are questions my office will be looking into very closely in the coming weeks. I look forward to doing everything I can to put the pieces back together for Nyheim, who is a terrific person and client.”.....

 

So "no one has been sued yet" and you caught that "earlier in the week" and you still asked why the rental company hasn't been sued?

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So "no one has been sued yet" and you read that "earlier in the week" and you still asked why the rental company hasn't been sued?

 

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[Beck Water]

23 hours ago, T master said:

Can't say as i can blame him ! I do have a question though will he be getting paid any of his money in his contract for this season ? How does that work ?

 

I know usually they get game checks but don't get paid in the off season but have often wondered as far as injuries go if they still get paid . Mika Hyde last season did he get paid after his injury last year ? & Tommy Doyle he's been hurt 2 seasons in a row now surely they can't just not pay them can they ?

 

So, that requires a bit of sorting.

 

First sort:

Is it classed as a "football injury" or a "non-football injury"?

Football injury = working out at team facility in the off-season, OTAs, preseason; training camp, games

Non-football injury = anything else (including injuries from working out to prepare for the season

 

For a non-football injury, the team is not required to pay the player his salary and per game roster bonuses.  They can choose to.  He keeps his signing and/or restructure bonuses.

 

Second sort:

If it's a football injury, does the player have a "split" in his contract that specifies that he will be paid a lower amount if he is placed on IR?

Of our 4 players on IR, Doyle apparently does NOT have a split and is getting paid full salary; Shorter, Spector, and Davidson have splits.

 

But to answer your last question: no, they can't just "not pay them".  Neither can they release an injured player, UNLESS they reach a settlement to pay the player for the # of weeks the injury rehab is supposed to take.

 

 

[mannc]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

In a case like this, where the damages are well into 7 figures, the idea is to sue (or threaten to sue) as many potentially responsible parties as possible, which has the effect of bringing more insurance carriers to the table.  The more carriers there are, the more likely it is that there will be enough money to pay your client's damages.  So yeah, it seems pretty likely that whoever rented to the guy who hit Hines will be brought in, regardless what sort of waiver Hines might have signed. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[Beck Water]

On 9/7/2023 at 9:20 PM, Mr. WEO said:

I guess it depends on your policy and where.  One law firm site said it would cover what specific insurance didn’t but you had to exhaust the payout of that specific policy—it included PWC along with auto and home. 
 

multiple other sites said it would exclude liability claims on jet skis over 50hp. 
 

Another poster said typical homeowners (not umbrella) covers over a million in liability.

I doubt any mandatory liability insurance a rental company requires (if at all) a renter to pay would cover more than a couple hundred thousand. 
 

anyway, my initial post said this guy doesn’t have 4.5 million for the taking l—including any assets or insurance. 
 

im standing by that as a sage assumption

 

 

$4.5M for the taking - I'd go with "you're right" on that.

 

But a guy who is suing, takes what he can get

 

Hines was due $2.56M from the Bills this season, $1M of which was guaranteed (likely for 'injury, skill, and cap').  Initially there was some back and forth that the Bills had offered Hines $370k, which is the max a player on the practice squad can receive.  His agent of course, wanted his full salary (which the team can choose to pay).

 

Let's say they settled on covering the guaranteed portion of his salary.

 

In this hypothetical scenario, Hines has got $1.56M of lost salary to make up.  So if he can get that out of some combination of the renter dude and the rental company and who knows, maybe the jetski manufacturer, still worth suing.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Beck Water

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I just found that in a Post article from yesterday.

 

I was asking why they were not mentioned earlier in the week in the initial report.  They focused on the other guy (who no chance has enough coverage to make a dent).  So I brought up the company.  You said they can't be sued. 

 

On what grounds?  You brought up intoxication but there's no evidence that was the case.  And even if he were drunk when he hit Hines, they'd have to prove he was drunk when he signed the forms.

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

$4.5M for the taking - I'd go with "you're right" on that.

 

But a guy who is suing, takes what he can get

 

Hines was due $2.56M from the Bills this season, $1M of which was guaranteed (likely for 'injury, skill, and cap').  Initially there was some back and forth that the Bills had offered Hines $370k, which is the max a player on the practice squad can receive.  His agent of course, wanted his full salary (which the team can choose to pay).

 

Let's say they settled on covering the guaranteed portion of his salary.

 

In this hypothetical scenario, Hines has got $1.56M of lost salary to make up.  So if he can get that out of some combination of the renter dude and the rental company and who knows, maybe the jetski manufacturer, still worth suing.

 

No one here seems to disagree with that.  My original point was that he was the only one being discussed and there is almost no chance he could cover what Hines was due on the roster this year.

 

Per PFT:

 

"

Earlier this year, Hines signed a revised contract that replaced the deal he signed with the Colts in 2021. The two-year, $9 million deal included a $1 million signing bonus, a $100,000 workout bonus for 2023, a base salary of $2.56 million for 2023, and $340,000 in per-game roster bonuses.

Hines has received $600,000 of his signing bonus. The Bills, per multiple sources, have proposed withholding the $400,000 installment due later this year, along with the $100,000 workout bonus that Hines earned in the offseason. That would represent reimbursement of half of the signing bonus covering the two-year contract.

The Bills also are willing to pay Hines $289,000 in 2023, which matches the highest amount that can be paid to a practice-squad player."

 

I don't see the Bills offering him his full salary for this accident.  Why would they? He placed the contract in jeopardy when he got on a jet ski.  

 

That's why I brought up the other guy's rental company (or pretty much anyone else).  

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

On what grounds?  You brought up intoxication but there's no evidence that was the case.  And even if he were drunk when he hit Hines, they'd have to prove he was drunk when he signed the forms.

 

 

 

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

 

Could be (and most likely is) nothing or could be something.  I trust what a lawyer says about as far as I can thrown one.

[mannc]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No one here seems to disagree with that.  My original point was that he was the only one being discussed and there is almost no chance he could cover what Hines was due on the roster this year.

 

Per PFT:

 

"

Earlier this year, Hines signed a revised contract that replaced the deal he signed with the Colts in 2021. The two-year, $9 million deal included a $1 million signing bonus, a $100,000 workout bonus for 2023, a base salary of $2.56 million for 2023, and $340,000 in per-game roster bonuses.

Hines has received $600,000 of his signing bonus. The Bills, per multiple sources, have proposed withholding the $400,000 installment due later this year, along with the $100,000 workout bonus that Hines earned in the offseason. That would represent reimbursement of half of the signing bonus covering the two-year contract.

The Bills also are willing to pay Hines $289,000 in 2023, which matches the highest amount that can be paid to a practice-squad player."

 

I don't see the Bills offering him his full salary for this accident.  Why would they? He placed the contract in jeopardy when he got on a jet ski.  

 

That's why I brought up the other guy's rental company (or pretty much anyone else).  

 

 

Ask his lawyer--he seems quite focused on   "Why someone elected to rent a jet-ski to such a person and why this person chose to do so"... 

 

What do you think he's talking about?

Yeah, there are lots of potential avenues for holding the rental company liable...the guy could have been visibly intoxicated, he could have brought alcohol onto the jetski, he might not have had a valid drivers license, which most of these places require, or he might not have taken a boater safety course, which is required in some states to rent a jetski.   

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Could be (and most likely is) nothing or could be something.  I trust what a lawyer says about as far as I can thrown one.

 

that's immaterial to this discussion.  

 

he's not just suing the jet ski bro.  he's going after his rental company, as I posited earlier.

Just now, mannc said:

Yeah, there are lots of potential avenues for holding the rental company liable...the guy could have been visibly intoxicated, he could have brought alcohol onto the jetski, he might not have had a valid drivers license, which most of these places require, or he might not have had taken a boater safety course, which is required in some states to rent a jetski.   

 

yup.  has to be something there

[BobbyC81]

On 9/7/2023 at 4:43 PM, BillsFanForever19 said:

Interesting nothing came of this on the Bills side. From the sounds of his agents tweets, it seemed like for a time we were going to let him go. But that never happened. Wonder if he's still being paid and what the plan is going forward.

Yeah, I wouldn’t believe the Bills fell for the “I was just sitting on it.”   How’d you get out there?

[Meatloaf63]

On 9/7/2023 at 8:55 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

for what?

Rental property is one thing.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

that's immaterial to this discussion.  

 

he's not just suing the jet ski bro.  he's going after his rental company, as I posited earlier.

 

No, the lawyer's words are immaterial.  They'll make you believe that the other guy is the devil and drink's babies' blood.  And they usually talk more the less they have.  I'll wait to see what he's got.  You would be wise to do the same.

[Mr. WEO]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No, the lawyer's words are immaterial.  They'll make you believe that the other guy is the devil and drink's babies' blood.  And they usually talk more the less they have.  I'll wait to see what he's got.  You would be wise to do the same.

you already concluded he has nothing, so what is it you are now waiting for? 
 

in your business, there is not a minuscule chance you will need a good lawyer before you retire. 
 

how did they hurt you?

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

you already concluded he has nothing, so what is it you are now waiting for? 
 

in your business, there is not a minuscule chance you will need a good lawyer before you retire. 
 

how did they hurt you?

 

How have lawyers hurt medicine?  LOL! 

 

Anyway...I might need a good lawyer before I retire.  Haven't needed one yet.  But I know how they work.  A year ago Araiza was a statutory and gang rapist.  A year later...