Dan Blitz Lawyer responds to frivolous lawsuit

[teamonkey]

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.....

[AdamM]

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

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.

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

[Junior Senior]

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

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

[mulhuzz]

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

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.

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

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.

[AdamM]

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.

[AdamM]

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

[BorntoBubble]

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!

[MANTIS01]

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.

[Doobs]

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.  

[MANTIS01]

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.

[mulhuzz]

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.  

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.

[AdamM]

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.

[mulhuzz]

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

[AdamM]

If you say so