Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Anybody who reads this https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/05/04/victims-mom-ultimatum-from-lawyer-paternity-test-led-to-regretful-settlement-with-tony-stewart/#3583320578e7 article and still thinks the civil lawsuit was about anything but the MONEY is an effing idiot. In fact - if after reading it once you still think it was about anything but the money - read it again.

I get sick and tired about the deal because they can't report the incident as it happened! Once again, an article of half truths because of omission and made up bullshit. They state how many cars avoided the kid......but not once did they mention the kid was seeking out Stewart's car! That's a big difference! Also they report that Stewart went up the track and accelerated......BULLSHIT. If that were evident there would have been charges filed.

ONE person is responisible for Kevin Ward, Jr's death.... Kevin Ward, Jr. Period. End of story.

Exactly.   Lots of people tend to think that Stewart was trying to intimidate Ward and went too far with it.    But then again, not everyone has common sense....

The absolute truth!   Too bad our court system isn't about truth....

I see as it's Friday and race weekend, everyone has their thinking caps on today!

First off, there is absolutely no way anyone can say Tony had zero responsibility in the issue. You can't say he had any level of responsibility in the issue. You aren't him. This is far from a black and white scenario on his behalf. Did Ward have a level of responsibility? Absolutely. He put himself in the situation, but if one putting themselves in a risky situation devoids them of any recourse, we live in a shithole of a society.

Second, the portion of the article isn't making a statement of fact when it is talking about what happened. If you noticed, it's quoted and cites the civil complaint as the source. It's clearly stating that this was the Ward lawsuit that is making this claim. It's not presenting anything as fact in regards to that portion.

End of the day, this is a very complicated situation. Obviously Tony's legal team saw some merit to it given that there was a settlement. Maybe it was for very little, maybe it was for a decent amount but they felt it worthwhile as to not have Tony be forced to legally accept responbility via a court ruling, but legal situations are tricky in this sense. 

Anyone who sits and says that it was 100% one or the other's fault is kidding themselves. I don't condone the Ward response but can logically see why they went that way, and that's not even getting into the other parts of the story about potential children, etc. 

Article also says "stewarts car made contact with wards car".  It did?  Did I miss that in the video?  Damn if people are going to put time into writing a article, at least do some fn homework.

I must be kidding myself then because this WHOLE thing was Kevin Ward's fault. 100%. You add the fact that he was very likely high as a kite to the fact that had ANY other of the drivers that missed him hit him instead of Tony Stewart there would have been NO civil lawsuit. The legal side of it would have come out the same as we all know. The Ward's lawyers initially saw a chance to make a sure and big paycheck but when it was revealed that the potential Kevin Ward spawn was not actually HIS their potential paycheck amount dropped dramitically. Go back and read the article. The facts however poorly slanted in the article actually shoot their whole lawsuit DEAD. Lawyers are sharks especially the ones that take on this kind of case but the Wards were safe swimming in what were previously shark infested waters because the FACTS removed ALL sharks from the area.

Let me preface by saying that I don't believe there was contact, but again, I don't know how you guys have access to 100% definitive high-quality video that shows otherwise. Nothing on YouTube is clear enough to say without certainty. The source video wasn't good to begin with, and once you combine that with YT encoding and the fact that most of the videos are re-uploads of low-quality downloads several times over, the video just isn't clear enough to where you can say with absolution there was no contact. 

Irregardless, I agree with your sentiment - that does deserve to be corrected and reworded with less certainty.

So yeah, the whole pot thing doesn't hold water to me. He have been lucky as hell to make it through the first 13 laps of that race "high as a kite". I completely understand that is an impairing drug and has no place in racing, and it would have definitely played a big factor had the case went to trial but it would not have absolved Stewart in any manner. All the Ward group had to do was show the most minor amount of negligence and they would have been awarded something. 

Not much disagreement regarding the lawyer part, but in cases like this (not specifically this one) it is important to have the ability for firms to represent potential clients on contingency otherwise there would be a lot of people who would have no chance fighting well-off individuals or corporations.

Again, I'll reiterate my overall point - anyone who says with 100% certainty who was or wasn't at fault or with 100% certainty what happened outside of Kevin Ward getting killed after being struck by Tony Stewart's sprint car is not a smart person. They are not approaching the situation logically, in any fashion. 

I could be wrong, but since Ward spun out without contact from Tony, I have always contended that Tony didn't even know Ward was mad at him when he came back around under caution. He was as surprised as anybody when Ward came toward him. It wasn't like Tony stuffed him in the wall and was expecting some sort of retaliation.

I have been called a number of things and a number of them MUCH worse than "illogical" but I don't think it's been used in reference to me too many times. Always using logic as an approach to things is usually what gets me in trouble because there are people in this world that would rather DIE than admit they are wrong. "High as a kite" may not be the best way of putting it (and admittedly may not be accurate) BUT as soon as you add "THC in his system at autopsy" to the equation in addition to the loss of the sympathy factor when you remove the "fatherless child" you have NO case. That is a logical approach to the reinforcement of my opinion all along which is, has been, and always will be: The ONLY reason for the civil lawsuit is because of WHO hit and killed Kevin Ward. NOT the fact that it happened at all which wouldn't have IF  Kevin Ward had stayed in his car (also a logical statement). The idea the Ward's contend that this would all teach Tony Stewart some kind of "lesson" is not completely lost though. The lesson, however, that Tony Stewart takes away from all this is "don't race with weekend warrior non professional racecar drivers even though you love it ESPECIALLY in a state that makes the release you sign when you pay your way into the pits worth less than the paper it is printed on". Sadly it's simply not worth it for Tony and those of us who enjoy seeing "Smoke" happy doing the things he loves / is good at.

That’s not how I read it at all. Reread the article without blinders on and see if your opinion changes. The way I read it, the lawfirm the Ward family hired was all about milking cash from Stewart, and once a paternity test proved the kid in question wasn’t his the potential payout of a trial dropped exponentially. 

From what I read it sounded like law firm pulled some bullshit to ensure they got a payday. 

Just the way I read it though. 

Read my comment proceeding yours. If the Wards thought the law firm took their case out of the kindness of their own hearts (and I highly doubt they were ever dumb enough to think that) then the biggest idiots in this WHOLE thing are them.

You must be all-knowing, somehow. The Wards clearly stated they weren't after money as result, but rather some culpability on the Stewart side. FFS, it's the lede of the story. 

They felt their best chance was to accomplish this was to get a top shelf law firm with a proven track record. Does the law firm care about the money? Yes, that's their job. So yes, if your post meant to point out the fact that the law firm representing the Wards was "about the money", then you're dead on. But the Wards have clearly stated that it wasn't their primary motivation.

I and others are calling their statement bullshit!

So I guess we're just going to pick and choose who we take at face value. Makes sense. 

A) THC can stay in your system up to a month, its mere presence is no proof kid was high

B) Kid is dead, family has been paid off, we can't read Tony's mind... can we just drop this?

I'll say with 100% certainty that it was Ward's fault.   I assume that you're smart enough to know that if you don't want to get run over by someone's sprint car you shouldn't go jump in the path of one.   Apparently Ward wasn't...

You're wrong on point A Jim.    If a urine test shows presence of it then that means you've smoked it in the last month or so.   If the resuults were from a blood test, that shows what was in the body at that time.   

As for point B - I agree completely.