The Jets Version of Rashee Rice. No Wonder We Hit CB in Draft & UDFA

[HighPitch]

This thread is pissing me off

 

he has to pay the victim 1200 a month until the 50k out of pocket expenses are reached??????? wtf this kid is a millionaire not a wal mart stock boy ....take it in full!

[batman10023]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:49 AM, PepPep said:

I never feel bad for the big corporation or the government or the millionaire in a lawsuit. lol. 

This innocent man almost died. Went through major trauma that will probably never leave him. And will probably have physical issues the rest of his life because of this accident. If he wants to go after every single possible entity involved in this accident, he should. Let the courts figure it would. The Jets have plenty of lawyers and so does the state of NJ to defend themselves with. And while it may not be fully justifiable, and cost unnecessary money, something like this will at least bring more attention to a horrific accident that should never have happened. Too many people get away with reckless driving and too many innocent victims die from it. Its absurd. There are enough car accidents as it is. 

And Echols should have been cut for this incident. I did not know it was this bad when he was suspended. I did not realize there was a near fatal crash and he had an extensive history. The Jets did. I'm not saying they were legally obligated to, but morally, they should have terminated his contract, or traded him.   

sure he should sue the various parties - but if the judge views it as frivolous then the attorney should pay the other parties legal bill.    At least something like that will bring more attention to the horrific insurance bills we are paying.

and do you REALLY think that the "big corporation or government" is not going to pass those costs along to the rest of us?  if so you are pretty naive.

and to be clear - you believe that a) anytime someone gets into an car accident their employer is subject to a lawsuit?  b) anytime someone gets into a serious car accident they should get fired immediately?  

 

a couple of years ago I got sideswiped by a car with 4 people in it.  it was the other drivers fault.  but the 3 other passengers sued ME and their friend driving the car.  and since the friend didn't have adequate insurance my insurance company had to pay for a BS claim.  they all were walking fine after the fender bender.  $65k each.    hope you enjoy paying for that fraud.

[batman10023]

On 5/5/2024 at 12:04 PM, Doggin94it said:

So long as by "involved in this accident" you mean "having a known causal relationship with the accident by failing, in some articulable way that impacted the accident, to do what they reasonably should have done", sure.

If you mean "they should sue Echols' parents for having raised him, the University of Kentucky for how he was educated, Southaven Mississippi and the State of Mississippi for how he was brought up, Dodge for selling him a car, and the State of New Jersey for having roads to drive on" ... um ... no. That's not how any of this works, and absent some factual basis to think something improper at work caused the accident, suing his employer because the accident after he left work makes no more sense than it would if his employer was McDonalds or Microsoft or The United Way or Sister Mary Theresa's Charitable Home for Adorable Orphans

it's almost comical that people think like he does.  it's the reason our insurance premiums are outrageous.  

[batman10023]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:04 PM, nycdan said:

Your employer has no legal obligation to 'do anything' about your criminal behavior if it is on your own time and not part of the work you do for them.  Nobody is defending Echols' behavior, but you are completely misguided if you think the Jets have any more responsibility for this than Burger King would if one of their cashiers did it on their own time.  You are conflating deep pockets with increased responsibility, which is the hallowed ground of every ambulance chaser out there but, as other have said, just isn't a thing.  

I don't recall hearing of the Raiders being liable for Ruggs....or the Patriots for Hernandez...and so on.  By your 'logic', the Dolphins would be responsible for child-support for Tyreek Hill's babies.  Everyone but you and the victim's attorney can see how much nonsense this is.  If it weren't the legal system would blow up with lawsuits overnight.

If you want to blame the Jets for football things, go right ahead.  But this sounds like something you are trying to wish into existence.

those cases aren't related to the jets so Matt won't have the same amount of hatred.  as you say he wants to wish and will woody into paying money.  

[Matt39]

17 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

those cases aren't related to the jets so Matt won't have the same amount of hatred.  as you say he wants to wish and will woody into paying money.  

I suggest watching the video. 

[Matt39]

47 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

it's almost comical that people think like he does.  it's the reason our insurance premiums are outrageous.  

Perhaps the state of NJ should have taken his license away if they didn’t want to get sued. And the Jets knew his driving record once they did a background check, which would have flagged previous reckless driving incidents. A lot of victim blaming going on here. 

[batman10023]

42 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

I suggest watching the video. 

i did watch the video.

your hatred of the Jets clouds your analysis of the situation in my opinion.

[batman10023]

43 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Perhaps the state of NJ should have taken his license away if they didn’t want to get sued. And the Jets knew his driving record once they did a background check, which would have flagged previous reckless driving incidents. A lot of victim blaming going on here. 

again your biased view doesn't allow you to view things in a fair manner.   given your post i assume you should know his license is from Mississippi.  Should NJ not honor or allow motorists from other states drive in their state?    My guess is if the state did that you would have a pretty angry reaction.

do you believe that anyone with a bad driving record should be unemployable?   (so 4 speeding tickets means you are unemployed)?

nobody is blaming the victim.  how are you coming to that conclusion?  everyone is blaming the driver who caused the accident.

[Matt39]

9 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

again your biased view doesn't allow you to view things in a fair manner.   given your post i assume you should know his license is from Mississippi.  Should NJ not honor or allow motorists from other states drive in their state?    My guess is if the state did that you would have a pretty angry reaction.

do you believe that anyone with a bad driving record should be unemployable?   (so 4 speeding tickets means you are unemployed)?

nobody is blaming the victim.  how are you coming to that conclusion?  everyone is blaming the driver who caused the accident.

You’re being incoherent. The argument this guy seems to be making is that the Jets knew, via a background check, that Echols had previous reckless driving incidents on his record. Which they then would be knowingly taking on a risk employing him. This wasn’t a speeding incident this was a guy who pummeled another car off of the road. He was also driving with an illegal license plate concealer. You’re blaming the victim because of your insurance premiums going up lol. Pretty sure that more related to having bad drivers on the road.

[nycdan]

1 hour ago, Matt39 said:

You’re being incoherent. The argument this guy seems to be making is that the Jets knew, via a background check, that Echols had previous reckless driving incidents on his record. Which they then would be knowingly taking on a risk employing him. This wasn’t a speeding incident this was a guy who pummeled another car off of the road. He was also driving with an illegal license plate concealer. You’re blaming the victim because of your insurance premiums going up lol. Pretty sure that more related to having bad drivers on the road.

It is not the legal responsibility of employers to monitor their employees' driving record unless they are driving vehicles for the employer as part of their job.  You open that door, and every single lawsuit in this country will try to claw money from the defendant's employer which is simply not ever going to be a thing.  You are so off the rails here but you can't see it.

And nobody is victim-blaming.  The victim's attorney is the one I would blame because he/she is trying to sell a narrative that won't hold up and ultimately just wasting court time.  I believe the term is 'frivolous' suit and I expect that aspect will get tossed in a quick summary judgment but there are NJ attorneys here who could probably put that into better words.

[Matt39]

6 minutes ago, nycdan said:

It is not the legal responsibility of employers to monitor their employees' driving record unless they are driving vehicles for the employer as part of their job.  You open that door, and every single lawsuit in this country will try to claw money from the defendant's employer which is simply not ever going to be a thing.  You are so off the rails here but you can't see it.

And nobody is victim-blaming.  The victim's attorney is the one I would blame because he/she is trying to sell a narrative that won't hold up and ultimately just wasting court time.  I believe the term is 'frivolous' suit and I expect that aspect will get tossed in a quick summary judgment but there are NJ attorneys here who could probably put that into better words.

Reckless driving flags on a background check. Employers look for that stuff because it’s a liability. The question is whether Echols had previous incidents that would have flagged or if the Jets didn’t do their homework. The narrative will likely be taken seriously because of the video evidence of the wreck (it’s really bad) and the license plate concealer. Calling it frivolous is premature since we don’t know his driving record.

[JKlecko]

2 hours ago, batman10023 said:

sure he should sue the various parties - but if the judge views it as frivolous then the attorney should pay the other parties legal bill.    At least something like that will bring more attention to the horrific insurance bills we are paying.

and do you REALLY think that the "big corporation or government" is not going to pass those costs along to the rest of us?  if so you are pretty naive.

and to be clear - you believe that a) anytime someone gets into an car accident their employer is subject to a lawsuit?  b) anytime someone gets into a serious car accident they should get fired immediately?  

 

a couple of years ago I got sideswiped by a car with 4 people in it.  it was the other drivers fault.  but the 3 other passengers sued ME and their friend driving the car.  and since the friend didn't have adequate insurance my insurance company had to pay for a BS claim.  they all were walking fine after the fender bender.  $65k each.    hope you enjoy paying for that fraud.

I can't believe that you got sued and your insurance company had to pay.  That's just crazy!  The laws in NJ or wherever you live are nuts.  There's no way that the 3 passengers in the other car should have been able to sue you.  If anything, you should have been able to sue them for distracting the other driver or not making him/her pay attention to the road.  The only person who should have been able to have been sued in that situation was the other driver.  It doesn't matter if he had inadequate insurance.  They should have been able to take his home, his car, and anything else of value.

[batman10023]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

You’re being incoherent. The argument this guy seems to be making is that the Jets knew, via a background check, that Echols had previous reckless driving incidents on his record. Which they then would be knowingly taking on a risk employing him. This wasn’t a speeding incident this was a guy who pummeled another car off of the road. He was also driving with an illegal license plate concealer. You’re blaming the victim because of your insurance premiums going up lol. Pretty sure that more related to having bad drivers on the road.

incoherent?  you were suggesting that NJ take away his license when his license is from Mississippi.  that's incoherent!

Again you are suggesting that employers should be on the hook for anything an employee does outside of the job.  do you realize how ridiculous that comment is?

again, blaming the victim? where do I suggest to blame the victim anywhere?  can you point to that?

 

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, Matt39 said:

Reckless driving flags on a background check. Employers look for that stuff because it’s a liability. The question is whether Echols had previous incidents that would have flagged or if the Jets didn’t do their homework. The narrative will likely be taken seriously because of the video evidence of the wreck (it’s really bad) and the license plate concealer. Calling it frivolous is premature since we don’t know his driving record.

@BadLegalTakes ...

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, JKlecko said:

I can't believe that you got sued and your insurance company had to pay.  That's just crazy!  The laws in NJ or wherever you live are nuts.  There's no way that the 3 passengers in the other car should have been able to sue you.  If anything, you should have been able to sue them for distracting the other driver or not making him/her pay attention to the road.  The only person who should have been able to have been sued in that situation was the other driver.  It doesn't matter if he had inadequate insurance.  They should have been able to take his home, his car, and anything else of value.

it's kind of nuts but i guess that's the law.  I didn't even have to pay a deductible.  

but the law says the passengers can sue both drivers.  and since my insurance is good i had to pay.   It's fraud given that they were all in on the gig (the lawyers they had were third rate and someone from the lawyers office was there within 5 minutes of the "accident")

I wanted to fight it but Gieco said it wasn't worth it.  Just pay the 200k and move on.

the other driver was in on the fraud.  he swerved into my lane and slammed on the brakes.   didn't even make it totally across to my lane.

there was less than 1500 of damages to my car.  (acura mdx) - it was slightly worse than a fender bender.  no airbags went off.

but the little old ladies apparently had neck pain and couldn't do their cleaning job for months lol.

[batman10023]

6 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

@BadLegalTakes ...

almost as bad as his woodytakes

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, Matt39 said:

Reckless driving flags on a background check. Employers look for that stuff because it’s a liability. The question is whether Echols had previous incidents that would have flagged or if the Jets didn’t do their homework. The narrative will likely be taken seriously because of the video evidence of the wreck (it’s really bad) and the license plate concealer. Calling it frivolous is premature since we don’t know his driving record.

how many different people are going to tell you that the employer isn't liable for what an employee does off the job?  are you unable to understand the difference between when it is a fault of the employer?   Andy Reid's son drinks on the job and then gets into a car and hurts a little girl.  The chiefs are responsible.   

The Raiders aren't responsible for Rugg's accident where the girl and her dog died.  

it's quite simple.  it's surprising that you aren't able to comprehend it.

[jamesr]

Not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK there are some considerations about driving when that driving is related to work in some way.

Most obvious one would be if I get told to go and see a client, and I drive there - I am driving on company business. But even just regular commuting is considered, as I understand it. Company has a certain duty of care and liability for their employees conduct - which they usually discharge by having a "safe driving" policy. That makes it my issue if I don't adhere to the policy - company has taken "reasonable precautions". It's also in my contract that if I lose my license I can also lose my job.

Messiest issue usually is when companies arrange social events - anyone driving there is still considered to be under the same duty of care. Again though, company takes "reasonable steps" - provide alternative transport options, and remind everyone not to drink and drive. Job done.

No idea how NFL contracts handle all this, but as Echols was (I believe) on his way to or heading home from the team facility, that may be why the team is being included. It's probably not considered as Echols' free time.

Last point - I believe his one game suspension was a team suspension, not an NFL suspension? I saw some comments above that suggested the suspension came from the league.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Matt39]

9 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

how many different people are going to tell you that the employer isn't liable for what an employee does off the job?  are you unable to understand the difference between when it is a fault of the employer?   Andy Reid's son drinks on the job and then gets into a car and hurts a little girl.  The chiefs are responsible.   

The Raiders aren't responsible for Rugg's accident where the girl and her dog died.  

it's quite simple.  it's surprising that you aren't able to comprehend it.

Can we see it get thrown out first? Why do you think employers do background checks? For fun? As far as Ruggs goes, he didn’t have any previous reckless driving incidents.