Mark Bell Now Facing Civil Suit

The news for drunk driving Mark Bell just got a whole lot worse!

Already facing jail time after the season, Bell is being sued in a civil suit, and could end up having to pay out a whole pile of cash to the victim in the case.

Bell's problems won't end with his sentence, which could be commuted to four months for good behavior. Bell also faces a lawsuit from Villafana, seeking "unlimited" damages.

"It's very early in the proceedings and we intend to pursue it all the way through," Villafana lawyer Samuel Samaniego told the Star yesterday. "We've sued in Superior Court for unlimited. Basically that means we're going to be going for everything."

According to the police report, Bell wasn't injured that night, but Villafana suffered multiple cuts to his head and face, swelling in his left foot, pain in both knees, chest pain while breathing and back pain all over. He missed work. He didn't have a driver's license nor did he have insurance.

Hmm, the d00d didn't have a license or insurance, and he expects a cash windfall?

Yes, a man who should not have EVEN BEEN ON THE ROAD thinks he deserves a big cash payout.

Excuse me while any sympathy I might have had just evaporated into thin air. How does Villafana justify a civil suit when he put himself on the road illegally? If Villafana is breaking the law, then he should waive all right to any financial compensation he may be seeking. As much as I despite Mark Bell's actions, Villafana simply should not have been in such a position to be struck by Mark Bell's vehicle, and should face his own criminal charges.

Sadly, we know exactly what this is about. Mark Bell is a wealthy NHL player, and a greedy lawyer has convinced his client that he squeeze Mark Bell for all he's worth. Villafana can milk his 'injuries' and set himself up for the good life on Bell's tab. Lovely!

Given how the 'victim' tends to win these case so bloody often, Bell better set aside some of his money to pay out to this lunkhead.

See also: Mark Bell, Just Another NHL Drunk Driver.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

8-17-2007 @ 11:21AM

YzermanZetterberg said...

I totally agree with your comments. Unfortunately, however, I am also aware of cases where criminals injured (or trapped) while breaking into someone's house have been awarded major damages by idiotic juries.

8-16-2007 @ 9:17PM

Matt said...

Sure, the guy Bell hit should have never been on the road, but it won't matter. I agree there should not be a case, but there is.

About four years ago, I rear-ended a car that came to a complete stop while entering a highway. The driver I hit presented a false insurance card, fraudulent driver's license and was an illegal immigrant. He should not have been on the road nor should he have been in this country, and yet he sued my insurance company through the roof for medical claims that were never apparent while I was there (he claimed he had a broken leg yet was walking around and standing up talking to me and he claimed the infamous hurt neck) and my insurance company settled the suit out of court. Naturally upon questioning how his State Farm insurance card did not look anything close to my State Farm insurance card, he immediately decided he didn't speak English well enough.

That is likely what will happen with Bell, though because he was over the legal limit, he's guilty no matter what happened.

8-16-2007 @ 8:42PM

ben said...

so assuming that Villafana is working poor, he has a job that pays to little for him to buy insurance, he therefore loses all rights. on the same note people who are sick and dont have insurance, should they go without treatment. how about kids who cant buy school supplies, should the doors be locked to them. also YzermanZetterberg you claim to know of mulitple cases where criminals broke into peoples homes and were giving large awards from a trial. i am not calling you a liar or anything. just pointing out that you will be unable to find mulitple cases in american law of this occuring. on the other hand maybe the internet is wrong and those cases are not put in these tubes.

8-17-2007 @ 9:48AM

PPP said...

Ben, being poor is no excuse for breaking the law. Not only did he not have insurance (without which you cannot drive) he didn't even have a license.

Your other two examples are vastly different from someone trying to get rich off of their own illegal activity.

Bell should be punished for driving drunk but he shouldn't have to deal with this bogus lawsuit.

8-17-2007 @ 10:45AM

ppp, of course being poor is no excuse to break the law. which is why the driver will probably face charges for his actions. this does not ignore that someone who drank enough to be twice the legal limit got in their car and hit someone. as much as we might be pissed off that the other guy should not have been on the road that does not matter in terms of bell being negligent. the reason he will probably settle is because at a trial the information about the plaintiff's not being allowed to drive will not be allowed into court. the reason being that it has no impact on the question, which will be did bell cause someone to be hurt due to his actions. also matt the reason your insurance company settled the lawsuit had something to do with you rear ending a car. i am not sure what state you were in but in New York the law is that the person in front has the right of way. you have to be a safe enough distance behind so that if they do come to a stop you have time to do so as well. it does not matter why they stopped or where, if they stopped and you run into them it is your fault.

Ben, I actually should have expanded my thoughts because I do think that Villafana should get his legitimate medical expenses covered. I say legitimate because unfortunately, as Matt noted, these sorts of accidents are ripe for fraud on the part of the injured.

However, Villafan should not have any recourse to "unlimited" damages as he shouldn't benefit from breaking the law.

8-17-2007 @ 11:17AM

ppp, what you say in your second post is actually very likely. lets say that bell is found to be at fault. when coming up with any dollar amount there are a few parts. two are pretty obvious. pain and suffering being the first, and lost wages being the second. the other part to any damages would be the punitive awards. for this the fact that villafan was not supposed to be on the road might be taken into acount depending on who the judge is. a strange twist is that since villafan is probably not making alot of money the amount that he might get in a lawsuit is much less than if bell had crashed into a young doctor lets say.

8-17-2007 @ 12:51PM

daimon said...

Just to point out, the "unlimited" aspect of this article is really misleading. In California, there are two classifications of civil cases. In a "limited" civil case, a person is suing for less than $25,000. In an "unlimited" civil case, a person is suing for more than $25,000.

That's all that "unlimited" means here.

8-17-2007 @ 4:12PM

Thanks for the clarification daimon!

8-17-2007 @ 5:13PM

Ben, I fully understand the law regarding my exact accident. I live in Texas, and the law here regarding who is at fault for a wreck in this specific instance is the same as you state it is in New York. That wasn't the point. The point was, as Jes wrote, that it's a tough pill to swallow knowing the other person involved in the accident was breaking the law and should never have been on the road. Bell also should not have been, and he's at fault regardless of what happened because he was intoxicated as the law states.

In my case, it's the issue of having a law on the books that all drivers must have at minimum liability insurance (in TX at least) and a valid driver's license. That's a great law and all, but it's not enforced. The lack of enforcement is the crux of the matter. And by the way, driving is a privilege, not a right. If Villafana is too poor to purchase the correct, legal insurance required by law, then he shouldn't be driving because he cannot legally.