Ashton to sue CHELSEA

[Fido Dido]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/11122009/58/...ue-chelsea.html

Just when I was feeling sorry for the guy I came acrross this . How bizarre can this world get ?

Sueing for a tackle which :

1) was made during England duty

2)was made during a 'training session'

3) was made most probably unintentionally by a fellow colleague .

[Fido Dido]

across *

[Hutch]

he sounds well desperate. seriously,i shouldn't think he's got a prayer even if he sued swp its not like it was even deliberate. its tough on ashton but he should just shut up and get on with it,

[Virosh]

If a case is filed, this would be a hilarity of only US-law proportions (no offense to Yankees out there, but that's the word on the street).

At the very least, his case will be based on the concept of "vicarious liability", which

1) only applies if the employer has not taken specific measures to insure that the employee is told NOT to commit said tort (or offense). I'm pretty sure the club can claim injuring players is not something on our training-day agenda.

2) can be invoked only if the offense was committed during active employment, i.e. business hours. I don't think England duty qualifies as that.

[Tim]

Feel really sorry for the guy, but it's completely ridiculous if he has any grounds to sue. He's obviously desperate to salvage something from a broken career, but if he were to win it would set a hugely dangerous legal precedent.

[BLUENUT]

Feel really sorry for the guy, but it's completely ridiculous if he has any grounds to sue. He's obviously desperate to salvage something from a broken career, but if he were to win it would set a hugely dangerous legal precedent.

He can sue us for what happens in an England training session? - He hasn't got a leg to stand on......boom boom!

[dkw]

its understandable i suppose, i mean he had never been injured before and had never missed games before...oh wait....idiot.

[Tim W]

He played against us a couple of seasons back and it said in the program he was a striker: trade description act where are you

[MHL_blue]

This seems a bit too desperate. Isn't he insured for these kind of injuries? To sue Chelsea Football Club just seems absurd.

[Ruh Buh Juh]

I'll bet we do get sued for this, that's how ridiculous this all is.

[BLUENUT]

I'll bet we do get sued for this, that's how ridiculous this all is.

Apparently he blames Kenyon........

[TheWestwayWonder]

Its ridiculous, but I too find it just sad overall. He knows we have money, and sees his playing days are done. It must be a bitter bitter pill to swallow knowing that, had you gotten the right breaks, you couldve been a legend and set your family up financially for three generations. The guy is clutching at any straw he can grab.

Now, if he wanted to sue kenyon, we could talk........

If a case is filed, this would be a hilarity of only US-law proportions (no offense to Yankees out there, but that's the word on the street).

At the very least, his case will be based on the concept of "vicarious liability", which

1) only applies if the employer has not taken specific measures to insure that the employee is told NOT to commit said tort (or offense). I'm pretty sure the club can claim injuring players is not something on our training-day agenda.

2) can be invoked only if the offense was committed during active employment, i.e. business hours. I don't think England duty qualifies as that.

None taken. The legal system in this country, as it applies to civil suits, is beyond a joke. In Washington DC we had a guy a year and a half ago who tried to sue a dry cleaner for $54,000 for losing his trousers claiming emotional damage. :lol: And no, they did not have a diamond encrusted fly

Good analysis Virosh. Based on that it sounds like he doesnt have a hope in hell.

[bonetti]

If a case is filed, this would be a hilarity of only US-law proportions (no offense to Yankees out there, but that's the word on the street).

At the very least, his case will be based on the concept of "vicarious liability", which

1) only applies if the employer has not taken specific measures to insure that the employee is told NOT to commit said tort (or offense). I'm pretty sure the club can claim injuring players is not something on our training-day agenda.

2) can be invoked only if the offense was committed during active employment, i.e. business hours. I don't think England duty qualifies as that.

His main problem will be proving that the injury was entirely caused by SWP - I very much doubt that he did not have previous injuries to the same ankle which would have to be taken into account.

On the subject of vicarious liability - weren't they both working for the England team at the time?

As Tim says , if in the unlikely event that he is successful, it sets a significant precedent, particularly for clubs and countries without large financial backing or those who do not have or cannot afford Insurance to protect them against such claims

No doubt Wenger would love Ashton to be successful

[geezer]

He has no case whatsoever against Chelsea because the incident happened whilst on England duty therefore Chelsea have no liability at all. And he has a very minute chance of having any case against SWP. Gordon Taylor is apparently in negotiation with Ashton's advisers and is strongly opposed to any kind of libel action being taken against anyone.