http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ritter12feb12,1,6438629.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Lawyers said today that actor and director Henry Winkler, known for his role of Fonzie in the television series "Happy Days," will tell jurors this afternoon about his last day on the set with the late comic actor John Ritter.

Ritter was stricken as he was filming the series "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter," in 2003 and died hours later in a Burbank hospital.

Moses Lebovits, a lawyer for the Ritter's widow and children, told jurors in a Glendale courthouse this morning that Ritter did not need to die. He could have been saved despite a tear in his aorta, which emergency room doctors thought was a heart attack. In court papers, defense lawyers say the doctors did nothing wrong, and that Ritter would have died anyway at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank. No autopsy was conducted on the body.

Actress Amy Yasbeck, Ritter's widow, has collected more than $14 million from the hospital and other defendants in settlements. But she contends Ritter would have earned more than $67 million over the course of his career, had he lived.

The trial began this morning before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Laura A. Matz.

Ritter was best known for his starring role as Jack Tripper on "Three's Company." Yasbeck's lawyers will call executives from Touchstone Studios in an attempt to show Ritter's vast earnings potential. Just before Ritter's death, Touchstone had decided to extend the series "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter," for another season, according to court papers.

No autopsy was ever done on John's body?????????? WTF????? This is the first I ever read of this.

I saw something about this on STAR magazine (I think that was the one), but didn't know the whole story. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

I thought John was awesome.

Three's Company (of course)

Favorite Ritter movies:
Hero At Large
The Last Fling (with Connie Selica)

i'm glad Henry's testifying, otherwise John would still be w/us if the doctors knew what he had. it still is sad he's gone & I wrote Henry after John passed away & expressed my sympathies to him.

Rip John Ritter 1948-2003

I have no idea why they (the celebs) are there testifying. No one is disputing John was a great man and actor. Even the defense has stated this. Henry talked abt how great a man John was, a family man, etc. So, what does that have to do with this lawsuit?

Katey Sagal testifying abt what she saw regarding John sweating profusely and how he looked, that sounds logical to have her there to give testimony abt that. But the whole "What kind of man was John?" is so not necessary.

I have no idea why they (the celebs) are there testifying. No one is disputing John was a great man and actor. Even the defense has stated this. Henry talked abt how great a man John was, a family man, etc. So, what does that have to do with this lawsuit?

Katey Sagal testifying abt what she saw regarding John sweating profusely and how he looked, that sounds logical to have her there to give testimony abt that. But the whole "What kind of man was John?" is so not necessary.
Henry was there on set with him that day, he was going to be a guest star in that episode.

Oh ok, that makes sense. So I guess the people who were with him within hours of his death are there to testify (as Katey did) regarding how he appeared and his overall appearance.

Juries are also swayed by emotion, not just facts. The average American has a false sense of intimacy with Henry Winkler due to the fact that he portrayed a beloved TV icon for several years. A heartfelt testimony on the loss of his friend will most likely carry more impact with a jury that it probably should.

Shotzette

Juries are also swayed by emotion, not just facts. The average American has a false sense of intimacy with Henry Winkler due to the fact that he portrayed a beloved TV icon for several years. A heartfelt testimony on the loss of his friend will most likely carry more impact with a jury that it probably should.

Shotzette
Which is why the defense is not happy with the friends being asked questions abt their friendship and how great a guy John is.

Juries are supposed to only look at facts and nothing else. If the jury is swayed by emotions, it can be cause for an appeal (if the defense loses) or the defense requesting a new trial.

Juries are supposed to only look at facts and nothing else. If the jury is swayed by emotions, it can be cause for an appeal (if the defense loses) or the defense requesting a new trial.


Yes, in a perfect world. However, juries are swayed by emotion--who give sympathetic and believable testimony and who doesn't. My husband came out of three days of sitting on a jury and told me that if he's ever on trial, he'll take his chances in front of a judge after seeing how overly emotional and prone to ignore facts and common sense that eleven of his "peers" were.

My prediction--whatever the verdict will be will be appealed and some sort of settlement made behind closed doors later.

Shotzette