blonde poker forum

Whatever you think of Dan Blitz, his money can buy a funny lawyer.

He threw a....erm....n adult entertainment actress off a hotel roof (as part of a photo shoot for Hustler) and she didn't exactly hit the pool and broke her foot. She wants to sue Dan for $85000.

Here is what his lawyer makes of that:

http://gawker.com/dan-bilzerians-lawyer-responds-to-the-porn-star-he-thre-1576855124

Quite so.

The fly line is incred.

On the other hand, the "Millionaire playboy"  could not be such a tight ass and help the girl out with some cash for loss of earnings.

Not sure WTF her actual line of work has to do with anything. If he'd thrown a female lawyer or a female poker dealer or a female taxi driver off the roof, would her occupation be mentioned at all?

Why just because he is a millionaire should he have to pay up?

If someone got hurt at my house I wouldn't expect to have to pay them for loss of earnings if they were participating in an act they fully agreed to do

...in fact, the more I think about It, the shittier it sounds.
If it had gone even more wrong and she'd have landed completely poolside and broke her neck and died, he'd certainly have found himself in court and probably eventually behind bars for manslaughter.

The Hustler photos shoot was for him and she was being used as a prop. Why shouldn't she expect to be compensated by either him or Hustler when she gets hurt and can't work as a result, regardless of the field?

Whether she was fully compliant with the idea, pressured into it, or just too stupid to think it through, he still threw her, and ultimately is responsible for the injury.

Should stop being such a douche bag and help the girl out.

If they got injured because you did something wreckless like throw them off a roof, you'd be liable I think, Consent or not.

I'm with Adam on this one.

Was this moved from lounge to rail?
Weird. Not really a poker related topic :-/

Or was it always here?

Is he responsible for the accident though? I watched the video of it and she grabs his shirt as he's throwing her. Pretty sure if it hadn't been for this then she would have been fine. idk if he should give her any money, but although it seems a fairly stupid thing to do all-round... seems like it's more her fault than his that it went wrong

I would suggest grabbing was a natural instinct.
How can it be more her fault than his if he throws her?

If you and a mate decide to play William Tell and you accidentally put a crossbow bolt through his eye and kill him, is it an accident and more his Fault than yours? What if as you fire, he screams or flinches and that make a you miss the apple and hit him?

He's totally responsible and liable IMO.
Unfortunately, money talks, and misogyny rules.
She's shit out of luck, and will have to settle for the little extra publicity she gets out of the situation.

Wasnt he to throw her as part of the shoot?  As in the magazine suggested it, she agreed, Dan happened to be there so they asked him to be the thrower?

If thats the case I dont see why Dan should pay anything, he was asked to do it and she had agreed (and grabbed at the shirt).

Id have more sympathy if he just randomly grabbed her and threw her off the roof as a drunken prank.

If they can prove that they specifically told her not to grab his shirt then surely she hasn't got a leg to stand on

Completely agree with this, hence she is suing no doubt.

Why should he pay?

Madness. If she has a loss of earnings claim it's against Hustler, not him.

She requested he throw her because she was getting paid a lot of money by Hustler for the opportunity.

She didn't follow directions, they took - for all intents and purposes - due care.

If this was a stuntman in a film would you have him sue the other actor?

Bias because 'the guy is rich' abounds.

Punning ITT

and she is an attractive women.

Im going to tred a fine line here but there is an "issue" with attractive women getting themselves into "situations" with wealthy men and then crying foul play afterwords.

Hustler didn't throw her off the roof, he did.

If someone said to me "I have a great idea, climb up there and throw this girl off into the pool while I take a photo of it." My first thought would be "that's a stupid idea, she might get hurt." As opposed to: "Wooo, fuck-yeah, Wooo, B to the L to the I T Zeeeee, Wooo, I'm the fuckin man, Wooo, yeah".which from what I can gather from his public persona is this guys inner dialogue 24/7

She might be thick as two short planks, desperate for attention or approval, drunk, pressured into it or simply didn't think it through. What ever her motivation, he threw her off the roof and his action broke her leg.

Seems only right, rich or not, that he should foot the bill (puns galore) for loss of earnings, medical bills, transport costs, etc.

If the story was "man (occupation and financial worth excluded) throws another person (gender and occupation excluded) off a roof and breaks their leg" then I'm sure most people would immediately think the thrower was liable.

Completely agree with mulhuzz, she was working, had an accident, if anyone is liable then it's her employer surely?
Yet another case of someone sueing for a quick buck IMO. What if it was the pool man on $25k a year who had been asked to throw her in? Would she be trying to extract $85k out of him? I think not.

The pool man would still be responsible in that example.
You throw a girl off a roof and she gets hurt, you're responsible.

Mulhuzz stuntman question wins thread

She has a legitimate claim against Hustler, who blatantly did not take due care. Less so against the wanker who did the damage but didn't offer to help her out. It's amazing that neither Hustler nor he, with the resources both have, would want to help someone who doesn't have much and who was injured during their shift.

If she'd died, it would be Blitz that went to prison, not Hustler, which is why I think he should be the one paying up.
Liable or not, it's the decent thing to do. Dudes minted, what's $80k to him?

(http://s24.postimg.org/f453zdtvp/e9696c52ad3811e3b26012abe6b5ecf6_8.jpg)

Would be tragic to have to break one.

Is that one if his pics?
If so, underlines the point.

hmm yes blitz would go to prison but they would also be in deep shit for arrangeing the stunt.

Have to draw the line somewhere, especially in America where people sue for anything.  If you let these through you're going to have loads more follow it

She should just start crying - then he might just give her the money.

omg lololol

Incred. Vwp sir.

Also, the people saying 'he has so much he should just flick her the 85k' are absolutely ridiculous.

If you can afford a tenner why don't you send her it as well. You're about as culpable as he is.

Also, people saying that Hustler didn't take due care are making quite a bold statement on the facts available. You really have no idea what measures they took.

Loss of earnings won't be much, surely they just hold the cameras at different angles...

my only thoughts are whether the wording of the letter is actually someone who is legaly trained would type

not enough ego cum quo pro type things in there for me, not a proper legal document unless there's something only the likes of Tikay could read.....

In what way are people posting on this thread as culpable as the person physically throwing her off the roof?

Personally, I'm saying he should pay her because he's responsible, not just because he's loaded.

The fact that it's chump change to him and he's contesting it just makes him more of a dick IMO

Is this what is known as a 'triple thread merge'?

In the sense that you equally didn't cause her injuries.

And your continued suggestion that his ability to pay should have any bearing on the issue is absolute nonsense.

He's contesting it because he believes (and rightfully IMO) that he didn't cause the injuries and distress.

I'll ask again, if this were a stuntman in a film, not a pornstar and some random rich guy for a magazine, who would you have the injured party sue, and why?

If you like, you can consider that the injured stuntman was doing his first ever stunt.

A stuntman would have proper training and relevant insurance.
Pretty sure the medical care in the adult entertainment industry is pretty poor.

How can you say he didn't cause the injury, when he threw her off?

Whatever, I still think he's responsible legally and if he had any decency he'd have sorted the girl out.

you are assuming that she a) doesn't have insurance (that's hardly Hustler or Dan Blitz affair though, she can make her own decisions as a self-employed 'actress') and b) that she didn't receive any training or support.

indeed the letter specifically addresses the second point.

I can say he didn't cause the injury because:

1. she agreed to be thrown and chose to be so employed, thus assuming the risks of such a stunt which aren't the result of direct negligence or recklessness.
2. she grabbed his shirt despite being told *specifically* that doing so would lead to a heightened risk of injury. it's obvious that had she not grabbed his shirt she would have landed in the water safely (just physics, right?).

The reason she is injured is not because he threw her, it is because she grabbed his shirt.

You might contend she has a claim against Hustler if they haven't prepared her properly, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Ok, you win.
Just saying if it were me, I'd feel responsible and help the girl out :-)

id hate to be on a night out with you and Dubai. Would be refunds galore!

Seems to me whoever was employing the model/stripper/hooker at the time of the incident is liable. The activity/stunt she was asked to engage in definitely had associated risk (as can be seen from the outcome) hence the employer has a duty of care to assess what that level of risk actually is. Don't know about US but in GB the employer better be showing the judge a documented risk assessment.

I am not a lawyer from the USA, but couldn't a judge settle this on a split liability basis.  She is 50% responsible for grabbing the shirt.  The others are liable for setting up a stunt where somebody could easily get hurt.  I guess those saying  she shouldn't grab the shirt have never been thrown off a roof.  Some things are just instinctive.  For example I am trying to teach my daughter to ride her bike.  No matter how often I tell her to ride quicker, she always rides slower as she is getting wobbly.  Little doubt she'd try to grab my shirt.  

I figure grabbing the shirt is pretty irrelevant after the fact and nothing to do with liability. When the risk assessment is completed the anticipation of what could go wrong is that duty of care the employer has. So yeah you would ask what happens if the stripper instinctively grabs at something? Then provide the solution which is training and specific instructions to not grab at shirts. Then if the stripper still grabs at shirts tough luck to her. Would still get her signing a waiver beforehand mind you. The liability here is that people were employed to engage in a risky activity on a whim imo.

you're thinking of the idea of contributory negligence, which (almost certainly) exists in California/Nevada/wherever this was.

however, how do you show Hustler were negligent? Or that Dan Blitz was?  'doing something where someone can get hurt' is only a crime* if you force someone to take part (they didn't) or were a) negligent, or b) reckless. I think you'll have a hard time showing that they were either, given it's an activity she agreed to partake in for 'work'.

is there a reasonable standard of care for throwing a hooker of a hotel roof into a pool? well probably not an established one but you'd imagine a court might decide that giving her a safety briefing and telling her e.g. 'not to grab the shirt' exceeded that standard.

point I'm getting at is that at the point you get to her being 'at least a little bit liable' then you have to conclude she's entirely liable because being told 'don't do X' (even when you subsequently do it) probably indemnifies the others.

*not 'crime' in the strictest sense, a tort, actionable event, whatever you like. ;)

@MANTIS : grabbing the shirt is absolutely central to the whole issue. if she doesn't grab the shirt there can be no doubt that Dan B and likely Hustler too are liable.

One of my original points and concerns is her profession seems to be relevant to people's feelings about it.
Just in the last few posts she's been described a a 'the stripper' and 'the hooker' when her job (which I think is neither if those things) is in no way pertinent.

The WOMAN he threw of his roof for the article on him got injured and will not be able to work, and will no doubt have extortionate medical costs given American weird aversion to any kind of public health care.

That's what annoys me most about the situation. I don't think people are acknowledging that she seems to have reduced rights because of her sexual activity. That seems wrong to me.

She doesn't have reduced rights because of her occupation, and I don't think anyone has suggested she does.

If you say so

I did say so, about a lot of post ago, when I suggested that a stuntman couldn't sue an actor in the same circumstances either.

If she was smart she wouldve hammered out what happens if she gets hurt before doing it

I agree it's relevant if the hooker is just randomly mincing about as a friend/companion. Millionaires do get strippers to just mince about the pool all day don't they? God knows I would.

Much different if she's deemed an employee cos the onus is then on the employer to anticipate risk on her behalf. In the eyes of the law she isn't responsible for assessing what could go wrong. She also isn't responsible for controlling instinctive reactions unless she's had specific training to resist them. Really it's important in this case to know whether the stripper is just a mincing friend or a paid employee.

@Adam, I mentioned models/strippers/hookers and you mentioned why treat them like 2nd class citizens or something like that? Just to clarify models/strippers/hookers are pretty much my favourite kind of people and I think they are great.