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

[wettlaufer]

1 hour ago, Buffalo619 said:

That’s not how it works. If Hines jetski was moving, they will share negligence. Defendant will counter sue and wind fall. If Hines was smart, he’d let this go. He’ll wind up paying more oop than the defendant. 

That's not what happened. Hines was sitting there on his stationary jet ski and homeboy came in and crashed into him.

[Nester]

3 minutes ago, Saint Doug said:

Does one need insurance to ride on a jet ski? Maybe from the rental place if the other guy was renting it? Otherwise, unless the other guy is a wealthy as him, I don’t see Hines getting much of anything from this guy. But, sure, anyone can sue anyone for any reason they please. 

need? Na, but if you what to protect your assets if you negligently cause property damage or bodily injury to a 3rd party it’s a good idea, homeowners or tenant policies provide personal liability however most have limitations on watercraft if not exclusions. 

[CheshireCT]

20 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

Are you trying to tell me jets skis aren’t dangerous?  

 

They are not dangerous. When you're out on the water there is plenty of open space, you shouldn't be getting near any other boats or jet skis. In shallow water or near swimmers you should be slowing down to idle speed.

[RobbRiddick]

I hope the Bills avenge him by taking out the New York Jet Skis

 

[CheshireCT]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

In the USA, there are over 1000 accidents a year on jet skis with about 60 of those fatal.  Here in San Diego, a 12 year old kayaker was just killed by a jetskier. 
 

It is one of the most dangerous activities to do out on the water.  
 

Hines assumed these risks and shares in the negligence. 

 

Sure, there is inherently "some" risk with riding a jet ski as there is some risk in everything we do. 1000 accidents in a year across the ENTIRE USA actually proves it's not a very dangerous activity at all.

 

In the example you pointed out, a kayaker was killed by a jetski. So would you then say kayaking is a high risk activity? If a Bills player was sitting in a stationary car at a stop light and got blindsided by a drunk driver, would you say he shouldn't have been driving and oh well it's his fault for getting behind the wheel?

 

He himself was being safe, he just got screwed by some idiot doing something stupid.

Edited September 8, 2023 by CheshireCT

[CheshireCT]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Every activity has inherited risks. Kayaking is a medium risk made into a much larger risk by sharing water with jetski. Bills player at light, where and what time? Regardless yes, driving a car is high risk and professional athletes should have their own drivers. 

 

geez, under this philosophy, they shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom without a supervision team.

[T master]

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 ?

[Saxum]

23 hours ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

"Knock it off with that 'public pressure' crap, or we'll call your bluff and you won't get a dime."

 

But on the note of Hines being partially responsible, I kind of see where the unpopular opinion is coming from.  Of course he is right to sue and should get every dime he legally can, but it's still stupid for a professional athlete to be engaging in such an inherently dangerous activity.  It's akin to buying a lottery ticket with the prize of pain and suffering, and losing a livelihood worth literally millions of dollars.  No reason to become a recluse in bubble wrap, but maybe stay off the jet skis, motorcycles, etc.  There's a reason these activities are often banned in contracts.

 

No need with Bills contracts.  Bills still have Jim Overdorf (Senior Advisor to GM/Football Operations).

[wettlaufer]

7 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

You sure about that?  

No. I am speculating on a message board on a planet spinning through space at 25,000 feet per second.

[Richard Noggin]

8 hours ago, CheshireCT said:

My family owned a jetski when I was growing up and I rode it all summer around Lake Ontario starting at age 12. I continued to ride it like crazy every summer until I was out of high school. I never hit anyone or came close to any accidents. Nor did I ever feel unsafe or did my parents think so. I wouldn't consider it a dangerous activity whatsoever. I don't have statistics, but I would say jet-skiing is probably safer than driving a car. Whoever hit him was really really stupid.

 

I mean, your anecdotal evidence of riding a jet ski on a gigantic and lightly populated body of water during the several months a year when that's fun is...not super pertinent. I've ridden jet skis in places where there is some significant congestion (Merritt Island causeway on "Space Coast" of Florida, handful of lakes in north and central Texas, and a couple lesser Finger Lakes)...and the risk of something going quickly wrong for someone is pretty apparent. It is only POSSIBLY safer on a jet-ski than in a car due to the lopsided scale of how often we're in cars societally. So each of us is more likely to be injured in a car because of the exponentially greater EXPOSURE to those risks. It's NOT safer on a level playing field of factors AT ALL. Automobiles, at least, protect our bodies. Jet-skis do not, of course. 

 

Hell, my best friend's stepdad (when we were in high school) was jet skiing on the Niagara River when his own biological son crashed into him from the side (kinda like what Hines experienced). His leg got fully severed around the knee and he bled out and died, just like that. Riding ON a powerful motorized vehicle is inherently dangerous. Riding IN a motorized vehicle is also very dangerous, but at least your ACTUAL BODY doesn't get crashed directly into the way it does on a bike, motorcycle, jet ski, etc. The vehicle can bear enough of the brunt to keep you mostly safe in most scenarios. 

[CheshireCT]

7 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

I mean, your anecdotal evidence of riding a jet ski on a gigantic and lightly populated body of water during the several months a year when that's fun is...not super pertinent. I've ridden jet skis in places where there is some significant congestion (Merritt Island causeway on "Space Coast" of Florida, handful of lakes in north and central Texas, and a couple lesser Finger Lakes)...and the risk of something going quickly wrong for someone is pretty apparent. It is only POSSIBLY safer on a jet-ski than in a car due to the lopsided scale of how often we're in cars societally. So each of us is more likely to be injured in a car because of the exponentially greater EXPOSURE to those risks. It's NOT safer on a level playing field of factors AT ALL. Automobiles, at least, protect our bodies. Jet-skis do not, of course. 

 

Hell, my best friend's stepdad (when we were in high school) was jet skiing on the Niagara River when his own biological son crashed into him from the side (kinda like what Hines experienced). His leg got fully severed around the knee and he bled out and died, just like that. Riding ON a powerful motorized vehicle is inherently dangerous. Riding IN a motorized vehicle is also very dangerous, but at least your ACTUAL BODY doesn't get crashed directly into the way it does on a bike, motorcycle, jet ski, etc. The vehicle can bear enough of the brunt to keep you mostly safe in most scenarios. 

That’s a horrific accident and I’m really sorry for that family. You certainly make good points that context makes a big difference. Confined water spaces combined with inexperienced or aggressive or stupid operators can create safety hazards. I probably wouldn’t jet ski in such places myself. Better to stick to open water!
 

I still maintain however that jet-skiing in itself is not an inherently dangerous activity. Safety on the water is primarily about remaining alert. Paying attention to the other water crafts and staying away from them.  When it comes to physical safety I’m probably the most cautious and risk averse person I know, lol. If I had the financial means and place to ride one, I would have a jet ski again in a second. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by CheshireCT

[ColoradoBills]

On 9/8/2023 at 7:45 AM, k2mountain said:

My umbrella covers me for one million, for a whopping $86 a year. It's a no brainer.

 

Agree.. no way Mr. Jetski has anywhere near $4.5 mil in coverage.

 

Coverage: the way the agent described it to me "You are covered for anything you are found liable for." That can be anything, anywhere. Jetski, someone slipping on icy sidewalk, slander/libel... the list goes on.

 

I have an umbrella policy too and that is what they are for.  It's also not mandatory that you own a home or auto.

Plenty of wealthy people in NYC renting and not owning a car have umbrella policies.

[mannc]

17 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 ?

It is my understanding that because Hines suffered a “non-football injury”, the Bills have the right to terminate his contract and pay him nothing.  Whether they have exercised that right is a different matter.  I have not heard, one way or the other.

18 hours ago, Buffalo619 said:

 

Hines assumed these risks and shares in the negligence. 

Sorry, that is not how it works.

[mannc]

22 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Yes this is how it works.  If he was moving, they’ll share in liability. Not 50/50, More like 70/30. 

 There is no such rule anywhere.

Edited September 9, 2023 by mannc

[mannc]

27 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Please do some research on comparative negligence jurisdiction and report back.

There is no need.  If Hines was not negligent then there would be no reduction.  The fact that he was moving (if in fact he was) would not automatically make him negligent. Period.

[Doc]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:53 AM, Mr. WEO said:

There's no chance this poor sap has any such policy that would cover a year of Hines's lost salary.

 

28 million drivers don't even have car insurance.   44 million rent their home/apartment only 55% have renters insurance.

 

10% of Americans have umbrella insurance.  20% of those with net worth of greater than 5 million have no umbrella insurance.  25% of those who do have less than 5 million in coverage.  

 

But maybe this dude is a "2%er" high net worth individual who has an umbrella policy over 5 million.  He might just be that 0.4% of individuals in this country!  Pay up bro!

 

So what?  You still sue to get whatever you can.

[Xwnyer]

I still wonder how he got on the jet ski sitting in middle of lake

[mannc]

57 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Please educate yourself. Researching is essential to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information. 

You have zero—and I mean zero—idea what you’re talking about.

[Mr. WEO]

50 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So what?  You still sue to get whatever you can.

 

why not include the rental company then?

[Doc]

44 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

why not include the rental company then?

 

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

Edited September 9, 2023 by Doc