Rampage gets Sued
by asmiley420 on Jun 25, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
44 comments
TMZ.com has reported Holli Griggs, who was involved in an auto accident Last year with Former UFC LHW champ Rampage Jackson, has filed a lawsuit. Griggs claims her child was stillborn due to the impact of the accident.
Holli Griggs filed a lawsuit against Rampage in Orange County, California -- claiming he repeatedly rammed into her car "so he could escape and flee the scene (hit and run)." Griggs says "the impact of her abdomen with the steering wheel caused her amniotic fluid membranes (bag of waters) to rupture, ultimately resulting in the stillbirth of her baby."
Investigators did clear Rampage from being responsible for the Stillbirth. The lawsuit is for over $25,000.00
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I’m not going to say that this suit has NO legs, but multiple medical professionals came out with a definitive statement that the two events are unrelated. If Rampage gets tried by a judge only (rather than judge and jury), this case will get tossed. If the plaintiff can play on the emotions of a jury, it’s got a shot.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Even the woman’s own doctor said the two were unrelated but I’m sure she thinks she’s got something if she’s trying to go to court.
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m guessing she doesn’t want it to go to court, and is hoping for a settlement.
by mythbuster on Jun 25, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably. I have such issues with the civil side of American law that allows for things like that – basically using bullying, fear, or inconvenience to get money or shut down legitimate law suits. But I’m no legal scholar, so I can’t say I have any ideas on how to fix it; it just bothers me.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Pay me or I’ll be bad press during TUF 10”
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s no surprise that the United States, and Western society as a whole has bred several generations who have such a high sense of entitlement that they feel that litigiousness is the answer to any problem.
by Ahhhoki on Jun 25, 2009 3:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I would like to add that Rampage may very well have caused this. But the fact that this lady was driving an Escalade as well as having the disposable income to fire up the litigation train at will makes this kind of pathetic. Because regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, she won’t feel any differently for having miscarried a baby. And I find it hard to believe she needs the money.
by Ahhhoki on Jun 25, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to add that Rampage may very well have caused this
I know why you need to write this, but after the opinions of several medical experts to the contrary, including, as who me pointed out, her own lawyer, I really don’t feel too much need to cast the blame net. It’s a shit situation, and a tragedy whenever someone loses a wanted child. But that doesn’t mean anyone is at fault.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’m aware that doctors cleared him of that and all of that, but I hesitate to say anything with 100% certainty, especially when it’s something I don’t know everything about.
by Ahhhoki on Jun 27, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The woman’s own doctor said it wasn’t because of the wreck but yes I’m sure she can dig up someone to say that it was, it’s not hard to find someone to jump into a lawsuit, of course they would want to get paid to say that.
by who me on Jun 27, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ll probably get flamed a lot for your comments but I know where you’re coming from.
"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy
by Benicio on Jun 25, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any element of poetic justice?
I’m not taking this viewpoint to be deliberately contrarion or vindicative towards Jackson but it seems to me that he got off fairly lightly for what he did. Had it been someone without his financial resources he might have gotten jailtime. At no time have I ever heard him express remorse, him and a lot of fans just seem happy that the whole episode did not inconvenience his career too much. I know if it was my wife who had been in the accident whether there was a causal link to the miscarraige or not I would be very angry, no one has the right to put others at danger whether they are a popular public figure or not. In no way do I support frivolous or baseless (opportunistic) litigation but this one is not clear cut to me.
by SDD on Jun 25, 2009 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If there had been any link at all between the miscarriage and the car wreck then I would agree with you but even the doctor’s said there wasn’t. Lots of guys get off the same as he did for similar incidents, it wasn’t just because he’s famous or has money it’s because of the medical issues, that kind of stuff does carry weight in court.
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should add that the “medical issues” were completly of his own doing too and it was pretty stupid. Still it’s not like he was drunk driving, it was a pretty unique situation.
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate what you are saying about the miscarraige not being linked and also appreciate that the lawsuit specifically deals with the alledged link between the miscarraige and the accident. But the point I am trying to make (inarticulately) is that perhaps the miscarraige is incidental. The fact that he did not cause bodily harm does not mean his actions did not have a huge potential to do so and there should be some commensurate punishment for that . I really do not want to come across as preachy but it seemed to me that at the time of the accidents a lot of fans were hoping Jackson would get a good legal team so that he could get on with his career which surely is not the right perspective. Also, I never heard Jackson refer to the incident directly with regret , all I have heard is him and others lamenting Ibarra’s alledged scamming of him which apparently served as the fuse for his enrgy drink/fast. To me he should have put a priority on apologising for the danger he put other people in and not complain about his victimisation.
by SDD on Jun 25, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So because you didn’t see his apology video he deserves to be sued? That would seem like some odd sort of justice?
Quinton "Rampage" Jackson court video and Jackson talking about how sorry he is for what he has done.
http://www.mmatko.com/rampage-jackson-court-video-of-his-guilty-plea/
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had not seen that, fair play to him for expressing remorse, I think that counts for something but my main point is still that getting in a car and driving recklessly is something very serious. If I were in a car which was hit by a reckless driver or a loved one was, I do not think I would have been appreciative of the energy drink defence and happy for the driver to walk away. I respect your opinion if you feel differently.
by SDD on Jun 25, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So your point now is that he deserves to be sued because he didn’t apologize enough? I’m just not following with the self righteous indignation here.
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, the apology has always been a secondary issue, if I did not make that clear from my initial mail then that is down to my not being clear in my writing style. The greater transgression is to drive a large vehicle at high speeds, crash into someone and potentially injure or worse. The phrase ‘righteous indignation’ implies that it is a ridiculous standard to hold people to but I do not think there are many people who would be willing to simply shrug their shoulders and forget an incident like this if it happened to them, their loved ones or even close to where their children play etc. Where I live people speed and consequently we have to watch our children very closely. I think that whenever you are discussing ‘justice’ you need to put yourself in the position of the victim. But, as I said, you may feel that the incident was treated appropriately and the book should be closed and that’s fair enough if you do, I just do not agree.
by SDD on Jun 26, 2009 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you are trying to say now but where I differ is that I believe when you look at justice you look at the law because looking at the victims is a emotional view point and many times emotions cloud the issue. He went to court and he didn’t just get off, heck the case will remain open until he finishes all his court required actions and if he doesn’t he will get the jail time at his 2010 sentencing date. The legal system worked as it should and even took steps to insure he got help so he wouldn’t do it again, that is justice.
on January 8, 2009 he pleaded guilty to one felony count of evading a police officer and driving against traffic and one misdemeanor count of driving recklessly as part of a plea agreement. Jackson will not be sentenced until January 7, 2010; in the meantime, he must complete 200 hours of community service, attend mental health therapy, pay restitution, and comply with other terms and conditions. Based on his compliance, the felony charges may be dropped, or Jackson may be sentenced to additional probation or jail time
That’s not saying that people should shrug it off and forget but it is saying that he has done his part by the law and shouldn’t be treated like some kind of menace because of one event. If he made a habit of ramming people on the road then it would be different.
The current move by this woman is pretty obviously for the sake of money, it has been a year since the accident and 6 months since his last court date, heck in Jackson’s plea bargain he was required to pay restitution, this woman is suing for something above and beyond that. I might view it differently if she’d filed this last year after the event actually happened instead of waiting till right after Rampage was announced to be on a tv series for several months this fall.
by who me on Jun 26, 2009 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you make some very good points, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion but certainly they give me pause. Just to be clear I would not like to see Jackson’s entire career or livelihood placed in jeopardy. And I do have a lot of sympathy for him if what alledgedly happened in the Ibarra situation is true.
I am not entirely sure that her motivation is only money, perhaps she wanted to cause him maxiumum discomfort with the timing as some sort of payback. Certainly the sum mentioned below does not seem consistent with someone trying to max out. But we can never be sure one way or the other on her motivation.
I am reluctant to go off topic here and do not want this to appear as a framed question or to be a Jackson basher, but what was your opinion on Jackson’s assertion that he had been unfairly treated at the time of the arrest?
by SDD on Jun 26, 2009 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether he motivation is strictly money or some kind of revenge deal just to get some kind of payback it’s the same to me, the time for this would of been back in January after his plea (if not last year), there wasn’t really any reason to wait this long except that they just started running commericals for him being a coach on Ultimate Fighter 10 last week. The amount of money mentioned points more to this being a money grab than anything else, it’s a sum that would be easier to settle quickly on than something to actually take to court and fight but then who knows what she actually has planned around that, it could just be her opening salvo.
As far as how Jackson was treated when arrested, it’s LA so who knows but getting arrested is an experience that should really suck ass and they really aren’t required to be friendly to you. If he’d had any actual proof of police misconduct then you know something would of been done about it, of course he was also a guy who was thinking he was god and was no where near in his right mind so I naturally wonder about his recollection of anything that happened to him at that time.
by who me on Jun 26, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A fundamental problem with this, though, is that the judicial system does not and cannot function on a principle of “poetic justice”. I’m not trying to characature or make fun of your post; but it’s important to remember that one of the major legal principles the underpins the whole system is that you can only be held responsible for an act that is A) a crime, B) committed with intent, and C) committed by you. Neither Rampage nor anyone else should ever be judicially imposed upon for something that they did NOT do, regardless of whether or not they did do something else and/or that previous act was dismissed by the judicial system. Laws are open to judicial interpretation only to the extent that they actually apply to a given situation, meaning that a situation is now part of the historical “spectrum” of such cases, which opens up the ability to interpret based on other similar situations. We can’t and shouldn’t hold Rampage legally responsible, either in criminal or civil court, for a crime that he did not commit, and justify it by his lack of regret or punishment for a crime that he did commit. That principle is the only thing stopping people from being repeatedly sued/arrested/imprisoned just because they don’t fit nicely within mainstream society.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The criminal case was dismissed before he was even charged. This isn’t OJ. Rampage will be fine.
by subo on Jun 25, 2009 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No one else finds the $25,000 figure really weird? Is it missing a couple of zeros?
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Jun 25, 2009 5:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good catch.
Rampage was never charged in relation to the death after an investigation revealed that the miscarriage was unrelated to the accident.
Griggs filed the suit anyway, claiming Rampage owes her more than $25k for property damage, personal injury and emotional distress.
( http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/rampage-jackson-accused-of-killing-a-fetus/ )
As I said above, my guess is that its just a way to get a settlement. If it was for 1 million, than Rampage would fight it. $25,000 – much easier and cheaper to just hand them some money.
by mythbuster on Jun 25, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep. My parents inhereted a big sum of money from an elderly lady that they took care of; her former neighbours, who used to come into her house and steal her silverware while she was out, sued my parents claiming that my parents illegally changed the will to remove the neighbours from it. It was completely baseless and everyone knew it, but they settled and paid out half of the inheritance. Why? Because their lawyer explained to them that by the time they finished with all the legal nonsense, it would be several years later and a chunk of the money would be gone in legal fees. Some people just have a nose for taking advantage of situations like this.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In which case I would direct my lawyer to shove it up his ass – I’d sooner burn the money than give it to thieves.
by subo on Jun 25, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with you, but we were dirt poor and they had two adolescent boys to feed, and I don’t think they felt it was possible to wait. All the same, it irks me to this day that some scam artists were able to take advantage of my parents because of their poverty, at a time when they should have been finally celebrating a stroke of luck.
Okay, enough personal story. Sorry, I still get worked up.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meet you in Ontario; they should be about 60 by now, so it’ll be easy. I’ll buy beers afterwards.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Jun 25, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d.
I’ll come along. People like that deserve everything they get.
"The path to enlightenment is through suffering"
by RearNakedChoker on Jun 26, 2009 3:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign me up.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 26, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So she’s going with the old “you killed my baby but if you pay for my Escalade we’ll call it even” lawsuit?
by who me on Jun 25, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least everyone involved can agree that he damaged her car. But surely the vehicle insurance would have covered that?
"Like a ballet of violence clothed in fine Brazilian silk." ~ MMASuPreMaCy
by Benicio on Jun 25, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple points
1. The State’s burden of proof in a criminal action (clear and convincing evidence ) is much higher than a plaintiff’s burder in a civil lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence), which means that the suit could have merit.
2. I would not want to bring this case to trial before a jury if I am Ramage’s attorney, and the plaintiff ordinarily gets to decide whether the trial will be a jury trial.
3. If she is asking for 25K, I would pay it and consider myself lucky.
by Bazz1119 on Jun 25, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
State’s burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, not clear and convincing evidence (which is still higher than preponderance), but your point is the same.
by twotone on Jun 26, 2009 5:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great points
I think Rampage and Dana will talk with the lawyers, assess their chances of winning in court, and end up paying her 25K. Dana loves publicity, but with the UFC’s growth and popularity, along with Rampage’s popularity (and the fact that the casual fan probably doesn’t know about or forgot about his breakdown), they don’t need this at all.
On a sidenote, it’s nice to see how highly this lady values her unborn child’s life. $25k?!? Unless her lawyers told her she’d have no shot in hell if she asked for more, that number seems really low.
by Ryjo on Jun 26, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pay her off and move on Rampage....it's a sad story in every way
Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. - 'The Sports Guy' Bill Simmons
by doublezeroduck on Jun 27, 2009 3:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is she actually asking for only 25k? Cause that’s more of a 25 million type of lawsuit. 25k is just asking for a quick payday.
by toxic on Jun 27, 2009 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
