OC Register: After Eric Kay’s conviction in Tyler Skaggs case, focus turns to Angels’ liability in wrongful death lawsuits

[AngelsWin.com]

The verdict of a jury in Texas on Thursday was far from the last word on the legal issues surrounding the death of Tyler Skaggs.

Now that former Angels media relations manager Eric Kay has been convicted of providing the drugs that killed the pitcher, attention will turn to the two wrongful death suits filed by Skaggs’ family.

In suits filed in California and Texas, the family claims that the Angels are at least partially responsible for Skaggs’ death because they knew, or should have known, about what Kay and Skaggs were doing. Kay himself is one of the defendants in Texas, while the Angels are the defendants in both states.

Major League Baseball will also conduct an investigation, a source confirmed on Friday.

Former Angels players Matt Harvey, C.J. Cron, Cam Bedrosian, Mike Morin and Blake Parker all admitted in Kay’s criminal trial that they received illegal opioids from Kay. They all received immunity from criminal prosecution.

Harvey admitted he also provided drugs to Skaggs. Harvey, who is currently a free agent, could be subject to a 60- to 90-day suspension if he signs with a new team, according to ESPN. The other players would only be subject to monitoring and treatment, ESPN reported.

There is no timeline for the completion of the MLB investigation.

As for the civil cases, the two sides have begun exchanging evidence in the discovery process in Texas, but not in California. In California, various procedural motions have stalled the case. There is no trial date set in either venue.

The question of the Angels’ liability breaks down into two elements. First, the Angels are liable for what Kay did within the scope of his job. The team would argue that they are clear in this respect, because Kay’s job description did not include him providing drugs to players.

“It’s outside of his employment and that’s generally speaking a good argument because criminal acts generally aren’t foreseeable when you’re an employer,” said Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor who now represents plaintiffs in civil cases like the ones filed by the Skaggs’ family.

The other portion of liability, however, involves the supervision of employees, regardless of their job descriptions.

Rahmani said the Skaggs family can still try to show that the Angels are liable because someone who supervised Kay knew, or should have known, that he was distributing drugs to players.

Kay’s family told ESPN in 2019 that Tim Mead, the Angels’ longtime vice president in charge of communications, became aware that Kay was supplying drugs to Skaggs a couple of months before he died on July 1, 2019. Mead has denied that he had any such knowledge.

The Angels have said in multiple statements that their internal investigations revealed that “the Organization did not know that Tyler was using opioids, nor was anyone in management aware or informed of any employee providing opioids to any player.”

Mead was listed as a potential witness in Kay’s criminal trial, but he was never called. There was no other evidence presented in that trial indicating anyone who had a supervisory role over Kay was aware that Kay was distributing drugs or that Skaggs was using drugs.

Although five players testified to knowledge of both, that wouldn’t be sufficient to prove that Angels management knew. However, it could be used as evidence that management should have known.

“If enough players knew, the argument is going to be, who is supervising all this?” Rahmani said.

Los Angeles attorney Matthew Barhoma, who handles appeals and civil cases, agreed that the Angels’ lack of knowledge shouldn’t entirely free them of liability.

“Failure to have an oversight system, failure to make sure that players are not involved in this opioid pandemic of sorts is something that they’re going to be held to,” Barhoma said. “They have a duty to ensure against this kind of thing. … This is someone who used to work for the (Angels) and was entangled with them for years. Trying to say ‘We didn’t know.’ I don’t know how far that’s going to go.”

Skaggs’ family is pursuing civil cases in two states because of differing laws in the two venues. Skaggs’ widow, Carli, is the plaintiff in the California suit, while his parents are the plaintiffs in Texas. According to California law, parents can’t be plaintiffs in a wrongful death suit if there is a spouse.

California law is actually more liberal toward plaintiffs in wrongful death cases, though.

Texas law states that if the person who died is at least 51 percent liable for his or her own death, no other parties can be held liable for wrongful death. The Angels would only need to prove to a jury that Skaggs was at least 51 percent liable for his death to win the case.

Related Articles

• Eric Kay found guilty of causing Tyler Skaggs’ death
• Eric Kay trial for alleged role in Tyler Skaggs’ death goes to jury
• Eric Kay does not testify in his defense during Tyler Skaggs overdose trial
• 4 former Angels testify they received drugs from Eric Kay, who’s accused of providing them to Tyler Skaggs
• Former colleague says Eric Kay saw Tyler Skaggs do drugs the night before his death

In California, though, there is no such restriction. Even if a jury finds the Angels were somewhat liable for Skaggs’ death, they could be forced to pay damages.

In this case, those damages would include future lost earnings. Skaggs was earning a $3.7 million salary in his final season, and he would have been eligible for free agency after one more season.

All of that aside, it’s still possible that these cases would be dismissed or settled before they ever get to a jury.

“The Angels I don’t think have any interest in going through a bunch of depositions that are going to expose perhaps a whole bunch of sloppiness and bad dealings on their part and whatever else was going on in that clubhouse,” said Josh Ritter, a partner with Werksman, Jackson and Quinn LLP in Los Angeles. “If they can possibly settle this thing out of court before that discovery process begins and save themselves a whole bunch of heartburn and embarrassment, I think they’ll take advantage of it.”

View the full article

[jsnpritchett]

19 minutes ago, AngelsWin.com said:

The verdict of a jury in Texas on Thursday was far from the last word on the legal issues surrounding the death of Tyler Skaggs.

Now that former Angels media relations manager Eric Kay has been convicted of providing the drugs that killed the pitcher, attention will turn to the two wrongful death suits filed by Skaggs’ family.

In suits filed in California and Texas, the family claims that the Angels are at least partially responsible for Skaggs’ death because they knew, or should have known, about what Kay and Skaggs were doing. Kay himself is one of the defendants in Texas, while the Angels are the defendants in both states.

Major League Baseball will also conduct an investigation, a source confirmed on Friday.

Former Angels players Matt Harvey, C.J. Cron, Cam Bedrosian, Mike Morin and Blake Parker all admitted in Kay’s criminal trial that they received illegal opioids from Kay. They all received immunity from criminal prosecution.

Harvey admitted he also provided drugs to Skaggs. Harvey, who is currently a free agent, could be subject to a 60- to 90-day suspension if he signs with a new team, according to ESPN. The other players would only be subject to monitoring and treatment, ESPN reported.

There is no timeline for the completion of the MLB investigation.

As for the civil cases, the two sides have begun exchanging evidence in the discovery process in Texas, but not in California. In California, various procedural motions have stalled the case. There is no trial date set in either venue.

The question of the Angels’ liability breaks down into two elements. First, the Angels are liable for what Kay did within the scope of his job. The team would argue that they are clear in this respect, because Kay’s job description did not include him providing drugs to players.

“It’s outside of his employment and that’s generally speaking a good argument because criminal acts generally aren’t foreseeable when you’re an employer,” said Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor who now represents plaintiffs in civil cases like the ones filed by the Skaggs’ family.

The other portion of liability, however, involves the supervision of employees, regardless of their job descriptions.

Rahmani said the Skaggs family can still try to show that the Angels are liable because someone who supervised Kay knew, or should have known, that he was distributing drugs to players.

Kay’s family told ESPN in 2019 that Tim Mead, the Angels’ longtime vice president in charge of communications, became aware that Kay was supplying drugs to Skaggs a couple of months before he died on July 1, 2019. Mead has denied that he had any such knowledge.

The Angels have said in multiple statements that their internal investigations revealed that “the Organization did not know that Tyler was using opioids, nor was anyone in management aware or informed of any employee providing opioids to any player.”

Mead was listed as a potential witness in Kay’s criminal trial, but he was never called. There was no other evidence presented in that trial indicating anyone who had a supervisory role over Kay was aware that Kay was distributing drugs or that Skaggs was using drugs.

Although five players testified to knowledge of both, that wouldn’t be sufficient to prove that Angels management knew. However, it could be used as evidence that management should have known.

“If enough players knew, the argument is going to be, who is supervising all this?” Rahmani said.

Los Angeles attorney Matthew Barhoma, who handles appeals and civil cases, agreed that the Angels’ lack of knowledge shouldn’t entirely free them of liability.

“Failure to have an oversight system, failure to make sure that players are not involved in this opioid pandemic of sorts is something that they’re going to be held to,” Barhoma said. “They have a duty to ensure against this kind of thing. … This is someone who used to work for the (Angels) and was entangled with them for years. Trying to say ‘We didn’t know.’ I don’t know how far that’s going to go.”

Skaggs’ family is pursuing civil cases in two states because of differing laws in the two venues. Skaggs’ widow, Carli, is the plaintiff in the California suit, while his parents are the plaintiffs in Texas. According to California law, parents can’t be plaintiffs in a wrongful death suit if there is a spouse.

California law is actually more liberal toward plaintiffs in wrongful death cases, though.

Texas law states that if the person who died is at least 51 percent liable for his or her own death, no other parties can be held liable for wrongful death. The Angels would only need to prove to a jury that Skaggs was at least 51 percent liable for his death to win the case.

Related Articles

• Eric Kay found guilty of causing Tyler Skaggs’ death
• Eric Kay trial for alleged role in Tyler Skaggs’ death goes to jury
• Eric Kay does not testify in his defense during Tyler Skaggs overdose trial
• 4 former Angels testify they received drugs from Eric Kay, who’s accused of providing them to Tyler Skaggs
• Former colleague says Eric Kay saw Tyler Skaggs do drugs the night before his death

In California, though, there is no such restriction. Even if a jury finds the Angels were somewhat liable for Skaggs’ death, they could be forced to pay damages.

In this case, those damages would include future lost earnings. Skaggs was earning a $3.7 million salary in his final season, and he would have been eligible for free agency after one more season.

All of that aside, it’s still possible that these cases would be dismissed or settled before they ever get to a jury.

“The Angels I don’t think have any interest in going through a bunch of depositions that are going to expose perhaps a whole bunch of sloppiness and bad dealings on their part and whatever else was going on in that clubhouse,” said Josh Ritter, a partner with Werksman, Jackson and Quinn LLP in Los Angeles. “If they can possibly settle this thing out of court before that discovery process begins and save themselves a whole bunch of heartburn and embarrassment, I think they’ll take advantage of it.”

View the full article

Alan Jackson was the prosecutor and Mark Werksman was one of the defense attorneys in the death penalty case on which I was the jury foreman about 10 years ago.

[T.G.]

32 minutes ago, AngelsWin.com said:

“The Angels I don’t think have any interest in going through a bunch of depositions that are going to expose perhaps a whole bunch of sloppiness and bad dealings on their part and whatever else was going on in that clubhouse,” said Josh Ritter, a partner with Werksman, Jackson and Quinn LLP in Los Angeles. “If they can possibly settle this thing out of court before that discovery process begins and save themselves a whole bunch of heartburn and embarrassment, I think they’ll take advantage of it.”

Of course...

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, True Grich said:

Of course...

Question: Would the Angels settling be an admission of guilt?

[Tank]

5 hours ago, True Grich said:

Of course...

[Dtwncbad]

On 2/18/2022 at 6:27 PM, Taylor said:

Question: Would the Angels settling be an admission of guilt?

No.  But lots of dumb people would view it that way.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

No.  But lots of dumb people would view it that way.

In a criminal case, if a defendant takes a plea bargain, is he or she admitting guilt?

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

In a criminal case, if a defendant takes a plea bargain, is he or she admitting guilt?

Is an orange an apple?

Obviously quite different.  The DA in a criminal case is looking for “justice” and actual prosecutions. They can also plead no lo contendre (not “guilty” but rather “I will not contend.”).

Yet in a civil case the plaintiff may be satisfied with a dollar amount.

There are certainly times when a plaintiff really wants to have the defendant nailed with being responsible (guilty) of the wrong doing, but they may very well take a settlement that admits no guilt whatsoever.

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Is an orange an apple?

What I'm getting at is, if a powerful organization like the Angels settles a case, the party suing is seen as money chasers.

If a poor defendant who has zero resources chooses not to go to trial because they lack the wherewithal to fight the prosecution, they're generally seen as guilty. A plea bargain is faster and comes with a lower risk. If you can't afford a lawyer, it's often presented to you as the best option, even if you're innocent.

Both plea bargains and settlements are ways to avoid court for a speedier result. The Angels can afford to go to court. If they're truly innocent, they should.

[Dtwncbad]

2 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What I'm getting at is, if a powerful organization like the Angels settles a case, the party suing is seen as money chasers.

If a poor defendant who has zero resources chooses not to go to trial because they lack the wherewithal to fight the prosecution, they're generally seen as guilty. A plea bargain is faster and comes with a lower risk. If you can't afford a lawyer, it's often presented to you as the best option, even if you're innocent.

Both plea bargains and settlements are ways to avoid court for a speedier result. The Angels can afford to go to court. If they're truly innocent, they should.

I would argue they should settle as fast and quietly as they can even if they are 100% innocent.

The Angels have a high profile and a long, drawn out court case that airs a shit show of dirty laundry is a big mess and PR nightmare that causes damage to the organization even if they end up prevailing in the end.

Sometimes it is just better to try to quietly settle even if you are completely innocent.

[Second Base]

So from what I gather, the Skaggs have zero chance of winning the civil case in Texas because Skaggs is more than 51% responsible for his own stupid death, but a better chance in California, should it ever reach trial there. 

[Blarg]

The wrongful death lawsuit would be in the state the litigants reside. In this case both are California and also Southern California. There would be no legal purpose to pursue a civil case in another state. 

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

The wrongful death lawsuit would be in the state the litigants reside. In this case both are California and also Southern California. There would be no legal purpose to pursue a civil case in another state. 

Did you actually read the article?  "In suits filed in California and Texas..."  They've already filed in TX. 

[Taylor]

33 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

Did you actually read the article? 

[ten ocho recon scout]

20 hours ago, Taylor said:

 

If a poor defendant who has zero resources chooses not to go to trial because they lack the wherewithal to fight the prosecution, they're generally seen as guilty. A plea bargain is faster and comes with a lower risk. If you can't afford a lawyer, it's often presented to you as the best option, even if you're innocent.

A good lawyer can get a guilty person out of jail.

A public defender can do the same for an innocent person.

In almost 16 years of arresting people, Ive never been to a court a single time for anyone saying "you got the wrong guy". Its always a motion saying I or somebody else screwed something up, so the evidence should be suppressed. 

It absolutely does happen that innocent people are arrested. Sometimes its cops making an educated guess ("that guy matches the description") , and sometimes its victims being less than honest (trevor bauer).

Im sure theres dirty cops out there that lie... but not nearly close to what hollywood would have you believe.

To answer your question, if the angels or anyone else w money pays out, its generally a simple math formula. "Whats the cost of fighting this vs the amount to make it go away"

Remember that the burden to file criminal charges is far greater than to sue anyone.

So you settle out of court, you have nothing to lose.... because one way or another, youre paying. You settle because its cheaper than fighting.

 

[bruin5]

“Failure to have an oversight system, failure to make sure that players are not involved in this opioid pandemic of sorts is something that they’re going to be held to,” Barhoma said. “They have a duty to ensure against this kind of thing. … This is someone who used to work for the (Angels) and was entangled with them for years. Trying to say ‘We didn’t know.’ I don’t know how far that’s going to go.”

This is the kind of thing that is 100% “rear view mirror” stuff and pisses me off.

I’m not sure that any employer has or could create a viable system without 100% employee testing being part of the program.  Everybody has or should have some type of “code of conduct” hotline for these situations and some type of “open door” policy.  You just know that players are not going to report teammates so both of these programs aren’t going to help. 

However, it sure would have been helpful if Skaggs wife and mother had reached out to the club with their concerns…

[ten ocho recon scout]

5 hours ago, bruin5 said:

“Failure to have an oversight system, failure to make sure that players are not involved in this opioid pandemic of sorts is something that they’re going to be held to,” Barhoma said. “They have a duty to ensure against this kind of thing. … This is someone who used to work for the (Angels) and was entangled with them for years. Trying to say ‘We didn’t know.’ I don’t know how far that’s going to go.”

This is the kind of thing that is 100% “rear view mirror” stuff and pisses me off.

I’m not sure that any employer has or could create a viable system without 100% employee testing being part of the program.  Everybody has or should have some type of “code of conduct” hotline for these situations and some type of “open door” policy.  You just know that players are not going to report teammates so both of these programs aren’t going to help. 

However, it sure would have been helpful if Skaggs wife and mother had reached out to the club with their concerns…

Its kind of like the bauer thing. Should the dodgers be held liable for bauer having weird sex off the clock?

 

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Its kind of like the bauer thing. Should the dodgers be held liable for bauer having weird sex off the clock?

 

Yes, please.

[T.G.]

6 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Its kind of like the bauer thing. Should the dodgers be held liable for bauer having weird sex off the clock?

 

Friedman should have known. He needs to be fired.

[Docwaukee]

Skaggs was also part of a union where they collectively bargained a joint drug policy with MLB.  

They will argue that the Angels should have had some sort of policy in place for non player employees.  Which theoretically could have exposed Kay.  He would have been fired or asked to leave or given a reason to go away quietly.  Maybe that happens but it wouldn't have saved Tyler Skaggs from his addiction.  Maybe it saves him from being dead already.  Maybe.  

But in the end, the Skaggs family isn't just going after the Angels.  They are also going after mlb and the mlbpa.  Not officially, but in terms of creating significant collateral damage.  It's the wise play on their part (and the part of their attorneys) in order to maximize their payday.  

And it doesn't matter how much money the Skaggs family has.  Any major firm would take this case on contingency in a heartbeat and see it through due to the potential lost income of Skaggs.   

In the end, both sides are probably motivated to settle.  Which is why I don't think this will ever go to trial.  

[bruin5]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Skaggs was also part of a union where they collectively bargained a joint drug policy with MLB.  

They will argue that the Angels should have had some sort of policy in place for non player employees.  Which theoretically could have exposed Kay.  He would have been fired or asked to leave or given a reason to go away quietly.  Maybe that happens but it wouldn't have saved Tyler Skaggs from his addiction.  Maybe it saves him from being dead already.  Maybe.  

But in the end, the Skaggs family isn't just going after the Angels.  They are also going after mlb and the mlbpa.  Not officially, but in terms of creating significant collateral damage.  It's the wise play on their part (and the part of their attorneys) in order to maximize their payday.  

And it doesn't matter how much money the Skaggs family has.  Any major firm would take this case on contingency in a heartbeat and see it through due to the potential lost income of Skaggs.   

In the end, both sides are probably motivated to settle.  Which is why I don't think this will ever go to trial.  

Agree with everything you say.  What I think will be problematic for the Skaggs is the thought that the Angels should have had their own drug testing policy in place.  

Mandatory drug testing only happens in select jobs that deal with things such as heavy machinery, transportation, or medicine.  It’s not used in office environments.  There was nothing to suggest that Kay’s daily work product was a problem. In other words, neither at the time or now is mandatory testing of all employees in all work situations considered a “best” or an effective practice, especially when privacy laws are considered (i.e. you are an office employee and test positive for marijuana, but are in all respects a good employee) and employee moral.  

 

[ten ocho recon scout]

5 hours ago, AlwaysAnAngelsFan said:

I don't think it is. There is no Eric Kay or Tim Mead in the Bauer scandal.

You dont think multiple clubbies have done favors for Bauer and every other MLB player over the years?

If say Bauer, or Trout, or Tony Gwynn saw a girl he wanted to bang sitting in the stands during the game, a clubbie isnt sent to pass her a number?

If then say something comes of it, like a rape allegation, would the team be held responsible?

Again. Like Ive said from the beginning. Kay is merely an addict who players went through to score. Period. He wasnt a connect.

But using him was far simpler with less risk than the players going and getting it themselves. 

And Kay, who is being portrayed as a dealer, was paid in extra dope to keep and use for himself.

There are tens of thousands of addicts doing this right now as we speak. But they arent linked to a multi-million dollar organization.... so nobody to blame.

If Skaggs was going through his buddy from High School who works for Uber Eats, would Uber be responsible?

 

[DCAngelsFan]

7 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Skaggs was also part of a union where they collectively bargained a joint drug policy with MLB.  

They will argue that the Angels should have had some sort of policy in place for non player employees.  Which theoretically could have exposed Kay.  He would have been fired or asked to leave or given a reason to go away quietly.  Maybe that happens but it wouldn't have saved Tyler Skaggs from his addiction.  Maybe it saves him from being dead already.  Maybe.  

 

.I seem to recall reading that drug testing for existing employees is prohibited by California law unless there's reasonable suspicion or it's required for the position by federal or state law.  

But yeah, Skaggs' was definitely covered by the jdp and all testing had to be done iaw the CBA.

Rittner's quote makes it pretty clear - they're looking for a settlement, not to go to court (contingency lawyers don't want to bear all those legal expenses either - they could lose)

Having two lawsuits, in two different states, though - that's a complication ... 

[ScottT]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:07 AM, True Grich said:

Friedman should have known. He needs to be fired.

Magic Johnson should go away, too