Sox being sued

[The Critic]

I never really looked at their arms.

If the arms were big, you'd have noticed them.

[CanOfCorn]

That would seriously be fantastic.

"Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of 4,500 White Sox Pride Crew t-shirts....and they must be delivered to his home, since he couldn't possibly lift the box anymore."

 

Delivered to his home via a repeating t-shirt cannon.

[The Critic]

Delivered to his home via a repeating t-shirt cannon.

[bighurt574]

It would be like the Adenhart family suing the drunken driver and his insurance company (hopefully he had coverage) for $100 million, projecting that's how much money Nick would have earned for his family had he not been killed at age 22...although I am sure the insurance company involved is probably pretty nervous about just such a lawsuit. If it was just an accident, that's one thing, but the added elements of fleeing the scene and drunk driving push it into another category of actionable offense/cause.

 

Insurance policies have limits, far short of $100M (Illinois, for example, requires drivers to have at least $40,000 in bodily injury coverage). Assuming the driver was insured, I imagine his insurer will quickly settle for their policy limit and get out of there.

 

As for this, you'd have to look at the disclaimer on the back of the ticket to see if it covers this sort of thing. It obviously covers bats, balls, etc., that are inherent to the game of baseball, but I'm sure the plaintiff's lawyer here would argue that this is a different type of situation.

Edited April 10, 2009 by bighurt574

[RockRaines]

Good luck winning that suit. It will be hard to show fault.

[Kyyle23]

i dont even know why the cannon is brought up as if it is an issue. he didnt get hurt as a result of the cannon(if he is even hurt) hitting him in the chest or head or anything like that, he got hurt because of the people rushing for the free t-shirt.

 

I guess a closer analogy is someone suing a band because they were hurt when the show started and the crowd rushes to the front of the stage. It isnt the bands fault that the fans are idiots and completely ignorant of the people they are trampling.

[Soxbadger]

E2 nightclub was sued for a stampede, Great White (rock group) was sued for a pyrotechnics display that resulted in a stampede.

 

In order for this case not to be dismissed Plaintiff will need to allege the following:

 

1) White Sox had a duty to Plaintiff.

 

2) White Sox breached that duty.

 

3) As a result of that breach Plaintiff suffered injury/damages.

 

 

The main problem for the Sox is going to be that these are all questions of fact. Questions of fact can only be determined at trial, therefore unless they can find a legal argument for 1) Why they had no duty or 2) Why they didnt breach that duty, the case will most likely go to trial.

 

For the sake of simplicity Im not getting into what the back of the ticket says.

 

As for the attorney not saying what the injuries were, well the attorney isnt a Dr. and cases arent won in the press. The only thing that could possibly happen is that the attorney says something stupid and the White Sox try and hold him to that. Which is why many attorneys simply do not make public comments regarding pending cases. They may say things like my client is innocent, or that my client was injured etc, but they generally dont make specific factual comments in the press.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

There are cameras and records of activities that go on in the stands at the park for these reasons. They are kept for several years.

[soxfan3530]

It's an F'n T-Shirt!!!

[Soxbadger]

At the end of the day its a question of fact.

 

I think that a judge definitely could rule against the White Sox in this case.

 

If I was suing the Sox I would aruge:

 

1) White Sox knew or should have known that throwing souvenirs in the stands can cause "melees" for the souvenir.

 

2) That even though the White Sox knew this risk, they still decided to throw souvenirs into the stands.

 

3) The White Sox had a duty to have a sufficient amount of security to protect their fans from a "melee."

 

4) That the Sox breached their duty by creating a dangerous situation and not having the appropriate amount of security to contain said situation.

 

5) As a result of the dangerous condition created by the White Sox, the Plaintiff was injured.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Why didnt he file a complaint at the stadium if he was hurt so seriously? Why did it take him over a year and a half to file a suit if he was hurt so badly from that one incident? How soon did he visit the doctor? I think this will get tossed or settle for peanuts.

 

Most of these questions are entirely irrelevant.

 

1) Why didnt he file a complaint immediately? Injury appeared to be temporary. Only after seeing his Dr was full extent of injury known. Defendant is not a Dr therefore had no idea of nature of injury. Injury was unknown at the time, only later did it become apparent. Finally statute of limitations on injury is longer than 1.5 years, there is no preference for filing the lawsuit earlier in that period or later. Attorney may have been trying to reach settlement with Sox over last year and final offer was not good enough therefore resulting in lawsuit.

 

2) How soon did he visit a Dr? That fact will come out in trial. Might be relevant if it can be shown that he waited an unreasonable amount of time and therefore his own negligence contributed to injury.

 

 

[RockRaines]

And from the back of my printed ticket to a SOX game:

 

Warning

 

The holder assumes all risk and danger incidental to the Game, whether occuring prior to, during, or subsequent to the actual playing of the Game, including specifically (but not exclusively), the danger of being injured by thrown bats, or fragments thereof, and thrown or batted balls, thrown, dropped or launched items or projectiles, other hazards or distractions and any incidents or accidents associated with crowds of people and agrees that CWS, Visitor, MLB, Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, their respective owners, shareholders, partners, agents, players, officers, directors, contractors and employees are not liable for injuries, property damage or other loss resulting from such causes.

 

 

You have the ticket, you have the fault.

[bighurt574]

Is it a real court in Hammond or just a bunch of boxes stacked up with the word "Judge" written on them?

 

 

Like I said, they will probably have video evidence for the defense showing that the guy flinched when a 7 year old kid walked in front of him to grab a tshirt and he walked out of the stadium under his own power.

 

Why didnt he file a complaint at the stadium if he was hurt so seriously?

 

Why did it take him over a year and a half to file a suit if he was hurt so badly from that one incident?

 

Did he continue working and assuming his daily activities for since JUNE of 2007?

 

How soon did he visit the doctor?

 

Was there other physical activity that took place after this game and before he was diagnosed?

 

Does he have grandchildren or kids that he picked up?

 

Does he do yard work or chores around the house?

 

I think this will get tossed or settle for peanuts.

 

 

I believe the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Illinois is 2 years, so it's not unusual to see a lawsuit filed over a year later, and that fact alone doesn't really do anything to undercut the claim (i.e. he could have been negotiating with the Sox first, waiting to see how his health played out, etc.). Nothing wrong with the wait.

 

I agree though, I doubt there's much merit to the suit.

Edited April 10, 2009 by bighurt574

[RockRaines]

I deleted that post because I think post #37 pretty much sums up how far his suit will go.

[Adam G]

Why plaintiff's counsel would want this in federal court is beyond me.

 

And for what it's worth, the Sox get sued all the time.

 

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcou...+sox&CDate=

[bighurt574]

And from the back of my printed ticket to a SOX game:

 

 

 

 

You have the ticket, you have the fault.

 

 

If I was the plaintiff's lawyer, I'd argue that injuries from throwing t-shirts into the stands isn't a "risk or danger incidental to the game." I think that's a pretty strong argument. The weird language in there is "any incidents or accidents associated with crowds of people." Not sure how that one would play out; that language is certainly vague, to say the least. This also all assumes the waiver is enforceable to begin with -- in some cases they're upheld, in others they're not.

Edited April 10, 2009 by bighurt574

[Soxbadger]

I said for the sake of simplicity that I wouldnt get into the back of the ticket.

 

First of all, I would argue that t-shirts being thrown into the stands are not "incidental to the Game".

 

T-Shirt throwing is not part of the baseball game.

 

If you went to the Sox game and the a piece of concrete fell from the upper deck and paralyzed you, the Sox may be liable if they were negligent.

 

All I am saying is this case is not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.

[Dick Allen]

And from the back of my printed ticket to a SOX game:

 

 

 

 

You have the ticket, you have the fault.

Not necessarily. Just because there is small print on the back of a ticket you may have purchased doesn't mean its legally enforceable. If the guy really had no clue that the small print was there or didn't understand what it meant, its like it was blank. If it was as cut and dried as that, no lawyer would waste his or her time with a lawsuit.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Adam G]

It would be like the Adenhart family suing the drunken driver and his insurance company (hopefully he had coverage) for $100 million, projecting that's how much money Nick would have earned for his family had he not been killed at age 22...although I am sure the insurance company involved is probably pretty nervous about just such a lawsuit. If it was just an accident, that's one thing, but the added elements of fleeing the scene and drunk driving push it into another category of actionable offense/cause.

The drunk's insurance company will tender the policy, no questions asked. Their liability is capped, liability and damages are clear. If the policy was for more than $500,000, I'd be surprised.

[Adam G]

Doesn't the back of the ticket say organization is not responsibly of injuries that happen during the game, by baseballs, bats, etc.

 

Wouldn't that be enough to have the case dismissed?

Not typically. It's at the judge's discretion to determine whether the plaintiff understood the waiver, appreciated the risk, etc.

 

In my experience, and ironically enough, waivers are more likely to hold up when the plaintiff is a lawyer. Hard for a lawyer to argue that he/she didn't understand.

[Kid Gleason]

E2 nightclub was sued for a stampede, Great White (rock group) was sued for a pyrotechnics display that resulted in a stampede.

 

Well, technically they were not sued for a stampede, but rather the fact that over 100 people were killed in the fire that resulted from the pyrotechics. Great White and their pyro guy were at fault.

[CanOfCorn]

I said for the sake of simplicity that I wouldnt get into the back of the ticket.

 

First of all, I would argue that t-shirts being thrown into the stands are not "incidental to the Game".

 

T-Shirt throwing is not part of the baseball game.

 

If you went to the Sox game and the a piece of concrete fell from the upper deck and paralyzed you, the Sox may be liable if they were negligent.

 

All I am saying is this case is not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.

 

Actually, wouldn't the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, be negligent? The Sox just rent there. I don't know, I'm just asking.

 

Also, the t-shirt throwing is not a part of the game, but it is part of the experience, which might be argued as the Sox logo is on the shirt as well as the people throwing them. Also, Southpaw is a White Sox mascot seen before, during and after the game...just saying, it's part of the White Sox US Cellular Experience.

 

And, who's to say this guy didn't wrench his back while going for the same t-shirt?

[Adam G]

All I am saying is this case is not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.

Hinshaw or whoever else is defending the Sox will settle this case. It will depend on the injury and the medical bills.

 

[Adam G]

Actually, wouldn't the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, be negligent? The Sox just rent there. I don't know, I'm just asking.

Since that's a state entity, plaintiff will have to get around the state tort immunity statute. To do that, he'll have to show that the state willfully and wantonly (term of art, obviously) caused the harm. That's not happening.

And, who's to say this guy didn't wrench his back while going for the same t-shirt?

His doctor and any eyewitnesses. It could also be a pre-existing condition, although the incident could have exacerbated it.

 

[Soxbadger]

As for who may be responsible for the falling concrete, that would depend on which entity had the duty to upkeep the concrete.

 

I think its becoming clear that this case is a question of fact. Questions of fact can not be determined by a judge.

 

The standard for Summary Judgment is that there are no set of circumstances which the Plaintiff could recover. I think from the last few pages its pretty clear that there is a set of circumstances where Plaintiff wins.

 

Thus it depends on the facts of the case, which can only be argued at trial.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Soxbadger