Fan Given Another Bite at the Hot Dog in Lawsuit Against Kansas City Royals
Provided by HG.org
A fan who got hit in the eye by a hot dog thrown by the Kansas City Royals mascot in 2009 could get another chance to convince a jury that the Royals owe him for his injuries. The case went before the Missouri Supreme Court on September 11.
Coomer sat six rows behind the third-base dugout at a Royals baseball game in September 2009, when a foil-wrapped hot dug flung by Sluggerrr, the team’s lion mascot, hit him in the eye. Sluggerrr would fire hot dogs into the stands from an air cannon between innings, and also throw the treats by hand when the cannon is being reloaded.
Coomer, who says his retina was detached by the hot dog, sued the Royals for negligence, alleging that Sluggerrr failed to use ordinary care when he threw the hot dog behind his back at the crowd, hitting him in the eye. He further alleges that the Royals failed to adequately train and supervise the mascot, according to Coomer’s brief to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Royals counter, saying that Coomer was at fault because he knew hot dogs were being thrown and chose to look away while one was being thrown in his direction. Croomer admitted looking up at the score board during Sluggerrr’s hot dog pitching, leading to a jury verdict in favor of the Royals. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found Coomer had accepted the risk of attending a baseball game, they had to find for the defendants. But in January, an appeals court reversed, sending the case back for another trial. The Royals, in turn, appealed that ruling, and on Sept. 11, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments.
Under the legal principle of assumption of risk, a defendant in a negligence case can argue that the plaintiff voluntarily took on the risk of an inherently dangerous activity, barring their right to recover for a resulting injury from the defendant. Generally, people participating in sporting events are held to a different standard than the average person on the street. For example, players assume all sorts of risks associated with playing the game. Similarly, spectators are often deemed to assume some reasonably foreseeable risks associated with attending a game in person, such as interacting with a foul ball that flies into the stands or, according to the Royals' argument, a hot dog tossed by a mascot as a promotional item.
Nevertheless, this is far from a clear standard under these facts, and experts are split as to how a jury could ultimately rule should the case be ordered to a new trial.
If you or someone you know has been injured while in attendance at a sporting event, you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney in your area at once. This attorney will not only be able to help you determine if you have a claim, but also help you to avoid issues like assumption of the risk that could impede your right to recover.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Coomer, who says his retina was detached by the hot dog, sued the Royals for negligence, alleging that Sluggerrr failed to use ordinary care when he threw the hot dog behind his back at the crowd, hitting him in the eye. He further alleges that the Royals failed to adequately train and supervise the mascot, according to Coomer’s brief to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Royals counter, saying that Coomer was at fault because he knew hot dogs were being thrown and chose to look away while one was being thrown in his direction. Croomer admitted looking up at the score board during Sluggerrr’s hot dog pitching, leading to a jury verdict in favor of the Royals. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found Coomer had accepted the risk of attending a baseball game, they had to find for the defendants. But in January, an appeals court reversed, sending the case back for another trial. The Royals, in turn, appealed that ruling, and on Sept. 11, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments.
Under the legal principle of assumption of risk, a defendant in a negligence case can argue that the plaintiff voluntarily took on the risk of an inherently dangerous activity, barring their right to recover for a resulting injury from the defendant. Generally, people participating in sporting events are held to a different standard than the average person on the street. For example, players assume all sorts of risks associated with playing the game. Similarly, spectators are often deemed to assume some reasonably foreseeable risks associated with attending a game in person, such as interacting with a foul ball that flies into the stands or, according to the Royals' argument, a hot dog tossed by a mascot as a promotional item.
Nevertheless, this is far from a clear standard under these facts, and experts are split as to how a jury could ultimately rule should the case be ordered to a new trial.
If you or someone you know has been injured while in attendance at a sporting event, you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney in your area at once. This attorney will not only be able to help you determine if you have a claim, but also help you to avoid issues like assumption of the risk that could impede your right to recover.
Copyright HG.org - Google+
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
