Was John Stossel's lawsuit after getting slapped by David Schultz justified?

  • Stossel suffered greatly.

    John Stossel suffered permanent hearing loss in the ear he was struck on and now wears a hearing aid. As a television journalist he is often required to wear a hearing device in one ear for director's instructions while needing the other naked ear for set or street communications. This is a solid basis for compensatory damages, however, the damages were caused by Schult's criminal assault. That allows also for punitive damages.

  • There is no question Stossel's lawsuit against Schultz was justified. But, the lawsuit against the WWF smells like a search for deep pockets.

    Schultz assaulted Stossel and is clearly responsible for damages proved in court. WWF might be responsible for some actions by their employees but not criminal actions unless the WWF encouraged the criminal actions. Since the WWF offered an out of court settlement to Stossel, it's reasonable to believe the WWF was at least partially responsible for the assault.

  • David Schultz had no right

    All Stossel did was state his opinion. "I think (professional wrestling) is fake." Schultz overreacted and assaulted Stossel. If you stated your opinion that went against someone elses, do you deserve to get slapped? If you sued them, would it be justified? I don't need eight more words, thank you.

  • John Stossel got what he deserved....Twice

    When David Schultz slapped John Stossel, Wrestling fans applauded. The truth of the wrestling industry is that it is a hard business and the contact is real. The moves are dangerous. People get hurt seriously and often. There may be scripts such as "A slaps B." The slap is scripted, but it is real. That is the point Schultz was making. Wrestling is real, as far as the physical part. John Stossel found that out the hard way by insinuating that it was not. However, Schultz did act against the law. Stossel was justified in his lawsuit. Awarding $425000 was entirely too much. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay off the porch.

  • Yes, I agree John Stossel's lawsuit against David Schultz was justified.

    I agree John Stossel's lawsuit against David Schultz was completely justified. It is my opinion that no words warrant being physically punished. Nothing John Stossel could have said made him deserve being slapped. Therefore, I believe John Stossel did deserve all of the financial compensation he received for being slapped by David Schultz.

  • He needed to make an example of him.

    Yes, John Stossel's lawsuit after getting slapped by David Schultz was justified, because Schultz had no right to do what he did. Stossel was correct to react, because he had to show Schults and everyone else that it is not an appropriate way to behave. Stossel is an old man, and nobody should slap him.

  • A Massive Hypocrite who sues when he tells others not to

    Stossel is a massive hypocrite who preaches against frivolous lawsuits. Yet.. Like any good hypocrite, went and sued a guy as soon as he could.
    Also.. If he came to my job and started to degrade the work I'd box his ears too. Belzer at least got choked and hit the floor with his head. That, at least has merit.. Oh.. And he didn't preach against phony lawsuits like Mr moneygrab, John stossel.

  • No damage was done.

    Stossel claimed that he suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault. If he was attacked with a weapon, that would be somewhat believable... But from an open handed slap, there's no way he suffered pain and buzzing in his ear that long after. He wanted money and revenge... It's as plain and simple as that. He should have gotten nothing.

  • If you don't want the answer; don't ask the question.

    1) Stossel approached Schultz, dissed him, and got in his face.
    2) Schultz's answer was consistent with his vocation: violent.
    3) We should be accountable for our words, not just our actions.
    4) Schultz demonstrated to what extent his vocation is real, i.e. only somewhat.
    5) Stossel was not injured. Hopefully he learned some humility and respect for others.

  • No, lawsuits should be about recovering damages

    The whole point of a civil lawsuit is for someone who suffered some kind of financial damage at the hands of someone else to get back what they lost. For example, if a laundromat destroyed your $200 coat and refused to pay back the amount, you could take it to court to try to get the money back. Getting slapped might have been bad, but Stossel didn't suffer any financial loss from it, so the lawsuit was frivolous.

  • He Admitted The Mistake

    The encounter between John Stossel and David Schultz did not justify having a lawsuit filed and John Stossel later admitted that it was a mistake. Stossel writes that he has come to regret filing charges, having adopted the belief that lawsuits harm hundreds of innocent people. (wikipedia) If anything, the encounter taught him a great lesson about the American justice system, which more people need to realize.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.