Murray works the phones at the 2009 NHL Draft. (Getty Images
The lawsuit, which was heard by a jury in Michigan over the past few days, had Murray and the Ducks listed as defendants by 45-year-old Rachael Paris, who had accused Murray assaulted her and sought damages for the assault and injuries which she says robbed her of her career.
After hearing the cases, the jury concluded that Murray did not intentionally assault Paris and thus they could not award any damages to her. Why not? Because her previous lawyer failed to file the lawsuit properly.
Paris’ lawyers, Mayer Morganroth and Daniel Harold of Birmingham, said they were handicapped by decisions made by Paris’ previous lawyer, who withdrew from the case late last year. They said he failed to include a negligence count in the lawsuit, which would have enabled the jury to award damages to Paris even if they disagreed about whether Murray assaulted her.
"What lawyer doesn’t put a negligence claim in a lawsuit like this?" Morganroth said.
Man, that's tough.
Witnessess testified that Paris was hit with a chair but nobody was able to say Murray attacked her. Thus you have the situation of negligence instead of assault and no damages being awarded.
It's a somewhat fitting end to a story that was all sorts of bizarre from the beginning. It's not often you hear about GMs attacked women in the press box with chairs.
I can't help but think of how great a gesture it would be by Murray and/or the Ducks to offer to help the woman in some way. I sincerely doubt that Murray couldn't spare some money to help Paris with some of her bills and daily life. It just feels to me like he got away with not having to pay based mostly on a technicality. Even if she was exaggerating her injuries, as Murray's defense tried to portray, she was still injured by what happened.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled summer program that is unlikely to include any more flying chairs.
More from Eye on Hockey