The recent item from USA Today taking a closer look at the decision not to prosecute former Bills punter Matt Araiza includes an important point regarding efforts to resolve the pending civil lawsuit against Araiza.
The article explains that the alleged victim was willing the settle the case for $50,000, that the Araiza refused to do so.
“Settling is admitting guilt,” Araiza told USA Today. “That’s not the truth. That’s not what happened.”
Araiza is incorrect in his assessment of what settlement means. Settling for $50,000 is a business proposition, since it likely will cost him at least $50,000 to mount a proper defense to the case through trial.
Even if he wins, he’s still out $50,000. Why not pay the $50,000 and guarantee that there won’t be an adverse verdict?
If Araiza settles for $500,000, then it’s more reasonable to assume he had a very real concern that he’d lose at trial. Settling for $50,000 means a smart and prudent and objective decision is being made, without regard to the emotional factors that can influence a refusal to give the plaintiff a penny.
I’ve heard it before, when practicing law. “I’d rather pay $100,000 to you to defend me than give the plaintiff a penny.” It’s music to the ears of the lawyer who stands to earn a six-figure fee. But it’s a bad decision for the person at the heart of it, if the case can be settled for the cost of defending it through trial, or less.
For Araiza, he’ll likely be paying $50,000 one way or the other. Why not pay the money (or offer, for example, $40,000 and hope it’s accepted), get the case behind him, and then be able to return to the NFL without the team assuming the risk of some future verdict that would create an unwanted P.R. complication?