Hot Dog To Eye - What would you rule here?

[MaggieD]

Wow, totally weird and unfortunate. I don't think anyone is to "blame" however for having committed a crime - dunno what the laws may say, but this sounds like a very unfortunate accident. If I were the team owner, I'd pay for the surgeries because I think that'd be the decent and honorable thing to do - particularly given they have the resources to do it.

But was a "crime" committed such that "damages" are legally warranted? I don't think so, despite the fan's injuries. There was no intent; there could be no reasonable expectation even that a hot dog (of all things) could be "dangerous." This is the sort of case that strains the credibility of those whose position is for not reforming tort laws imho. We can't be a people who can long survive if we expect to take one another to court for accidents where no intent to harm exists just because harm occurred.

On the other hand, if I throw a hot dog in your face? That's assault. I think a jury would award damages, frankly. :rofl!!!! That was an accident!!!

 

[EdwinWillers]

On the other hand, if I throw a hot dog in your face? That's assault. I think a jury would award damages, frankly. :rofl!!!! That was an accident!!!

Depends though - if you hit my mouth, it wouldn't be assault, it'd be service.

 

[Gardener]

On the other hand, if I throw a hot dog in your face? That's assault. I think a jury would award damages, frankly. :rofl!!!! That was an accident!!!

I just hope the pun was no accident.

I would be very disappointed if it were.

 

[joko104]

Unless he motioned for the mascot to throw him a hotdog, yes the corporation that employed the mascot is liable.

How would the "baseball" rule apply? Yes, if you go to a baseball you are consenting to the risk of being hit by a baseball. But it wasn't a baseball, was it?

The only reason I see the court seeing any issue at all is because the baseball team corporation is a billion dollar operation with a million dollar law firm using this opportunity to run up their billing by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - and the person is a nobody.

 

[joko104]

Wow, totally weird and unfortunate. I don't think anyone is to "blame" however for having committed a crime - dunno what the laws may say, but this sounds like a very unfortunate accident. If I were the team owner, I'd pay for the surgeries because I think that'd be the decent and honorable thing to do - particularly given they have the resources to do it.

But was a "crime" committed such that "damages" are legally warranted? I don't think so, despite the fan's injuries. There was no intent; there could be no reasonable expectation even that a hot dog (of all things) could be "dangerous." This is the sort of case that strains the credibility of those whose position is for not reforming tort laws imho. We can't be a people who can long survive if we expect to take one another to court for accidents where no intent to harm exists just because harm occurred.

No crime, but there was a "tort" (civil).

 

[joko104]

I'm just wondering how a "tossed" hot dog could do so much damage. Maybe the corner of the tin foil got him in the eye. I wonder what would have happened if that had been a baseball?

If a baseball, then no lawsuit, ie the "baseball rule."

This is how I see it. You go to a drag race track and if a race car motor blows up and you are hit with a steel connecting rod, you had accepted the risks that come around racing. BUT, what if one of the race track employees surprise threw a souvenir wrench into the audience hitting a spectator? That is not a risk the person voluntarily agreed to take.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No crime, but there was a "tort" (civil).

I disagree - I don't think all accidents are necessarily tortious, irrespective of injuries one may have received. I disagree with "fairness" as a legal standard, civil or criminal.

 

[lawboy]

No crime, but there was a "tort" (civil).

A crime can form the basis of Tort too, Derivative Tort.

Also if a statute confers a duty and it is breached, although no private Cause of Action is specified, it can be by common law or by interpretaion, such as the federal Cort v. Ash for a criminal statute.

 

[lawboy]

On the other hand, if I throw a hot dog in your face? That's assault. I think a jury would award damages, frankly. :rofl!!!! That was an accident!!!

2 peanuts were walking down the street and one was assaulted (get it)!!

 

[radcen]

A ruling in Coomer's favor, or one that at least assigns partial blame to the mascot, could force teams to rethink their promotions or take additional measures to keep spectators safe, Kobritz said.

While I am not necessarily sympathetic to this lawsuit, this might be a silver lining. Quite often when I go to games I feel like I'm the only person there who came to actually watch the game. I hate all the dumb-arse antics that they do now.

 

[ChrisL]

If a baseball, then no lawsuit, ie the "baseball rule."

This is how I see it. You go to a drag race track and if a race car motor blows up and you are hit with a steel connecting rod, you had accepted the risks that come around racing. BUT, what if one of the race track employees surprise threw a souvenir wrench into the audience hitting a spectator? That is not a risk the person voluntarily agreed to take.

I agree. I meant, I wonder what kind of damage the person would have suffered had it been a baseball instead of a hot dog?

 

[lawboy]

If a baseball, then no lawsuit, ie the "baseball rule."

This is how I see it. You go to a drag race track and if a race car motor blows up and you are hit with a steel connecting rod, you had accepted the risks that come around racing. BUT, what if one of the race track employees surprise threw a souvenir wrench into the audience hitting a spectator? That is not a risk the person voluntarily agreed to take.

A wrench is substantial in matter and ability to harm more when contacted with than a hot dog, so that would be clear Negligence, to what degree is for determination.

 

[ChrisL]

Really though, what are the chances of a person being seriously injured by a hot dog? :lamo It's hilarious.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm still struggling to imagine how in the **** a hotdog can cause injuries so serious that he needed SURGERY. What did he do - hold him down and stab out his eyes?

 

[lawboy]

I'm still struggling to imagine how in the **** a hotdog can cause injuries so serious that he needed SURGERY. What did he do - hold him down and stab out his eyes?

The Complaint averred assault and EYE damage, some type of Retina/lens damage, it hit him in the EYE.

 

[Dragonfly]

I'm still struggling to imagine how in the **** a hotdog can cause injuries so serious that he needed SURGERY. What did he do - hold him down and stab out his eyes?

Think pointy sharp or jagged tin foil hitting just right at the perfect angle into your soft little eye ball.

It is hard to imagine - which is why it'd be such a freak accident it's hard to see how a sports team could be held liable.

This isn't a case of a hand railing breaking loose due to poor maintenance and somebody falling down the stairs.

This is beyond an against the odds kinds thing that nobody could have foreseen happening.

 

[ChrisL]

Think pointy sharp or jagged tin foil hitting just right at the perfect angle into your soft little eye ball.

It is hard to imagine - which is why it'd be such a freak accident it's hard to see how a sports team could be held liable.

This isn't a case of a hand railing breaking loose due to poor maintenance and somebody falling down the stairs.

This is beyond an against the odds kinds thing that nobody could have foreseen happening.

I agree. That is definitely a freak accident. Hot dogs aren't considered a dangerous weapon. :lol:

 

[joko104]

A crime can form the basis of Tort too, Derivative Tort.

Also if a statute confers a duty and it is breached, although no private Cause of Action is specified, it can be by common law or by interpretaion, such as the federal Cort v. Ash for a criminal statute.

Yes, a crime can be a tort. Or not depending upon if someone else it "tort-ed" by the crime.

 

[SMTA]

Yes, a crime can be a tort. Or not depending upon if someone else it "tort-ed" by the crime.

Bypassing the 12 y/o definition, tort law is as follows:

Tort law reflects rights, obligations, and remedies and is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others.

The person who has sustained injury or has suffered pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor.

 

[Mason66]

Wow, totally weird and unfortunate. I don't think anyone is to "blame" however for having committed a crime - dunno what the laws may say, but this sounds like a very unfortunate accident. If I were the team owner, I'd pay for the surgeries because I think that'd be the decent and honorable thing to do - particularly given they have the resources to do it.

But was a "crime" committed such that "damages" are legally warranted? I don't think so, despite the fan's injuries. There was no intent; there could be no reasonable expectation even that a hot dog (of all things) could be "dangerous." This is the sort of case that strains the credibility of those whose position is for not reforming tort laws imho. We can't be a people who can long survive if we expect to take one another to court for accidents where no intent to harm exists just because harm occurred.

I absolutely would have done the same thing and kept it out of the press.

What good is it doing the team to drag this through the press?

I would have paid him what he wanted and felt lucky he wasn't asking for millions.

Maybe there is something here we are not seeing as far as how it happened.

 

[Mason66]

I'm still struggling to imagine how in the **** a hotdog can cause injuries so serious that he needed SURGERY. What did he do - hold him down and stab out his eyes?

Who goes to a day game with no sunglasses on. I am assuming it was a day game.

 

[ecofarm]

Just heard "Handel on the Law" (radio show). He said:

~ One accepts the risk of baseballs, that includes accepting the risk of hotdogs. Once the risk is assumed, it doesn't matter (presumably as long as the incident was no more dangerous than a baseball).

Seems he doesn't believe the "non-baseball game related" will hold up.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Another moment of "faith in humanity....lost, once again."

 

[jimbo]

Fan injured by hot dog suing Kan. City Royals

Wow......just wow.

I'm torn here. Bizarre accident. Obviously no intent to injure.

But damn....the dude suffered a serious injury and has had to have multiple surgeries.

How would you rule in this case?

Who is liable for damages?

At what point has the team done "enough" to help this guy?

Actions have consequences, and going to a ball game is an action.

Momma state cannot protect you from flying hot dogs.

 

[ksu_aviator]

As silly as it is, the facts are not really in dispute. The mascot threw the hot dog and the throw resulted in an injury that required significant medical attention. I don't think there is any doubt the Royals organization will end up paying, the only thing to dispute now is how much. It will probably be the cost of the medical expenses directly related to the incident, the legal fees, any lost opportunity cost (i.e. lost wages) and some punitive compensation. I bet this ends up coming in around $100K.