Joined Dec 2008
L10: Grand Master
Forum Thread
SD lawyers- question here
August 20, 2012 at
11:16 AM
in
Chat
Long story short.
Bachelorette party last year. Girls drinking.
Girl was not drinking too much to get hammered.
Girl likely had drink spiked by guys.
Girl starts dancing on music stage for bands with other girls allowed by bar.
Girl passes out and face plants off the stage busting nose and teeth.
Girl goes to hospital - bar apologizes and promises to never let anyone dance on the stage again.
Girls insurance only covers so much of cosmetic repairs so girl decides to sue bar to cover the rest of the medical bills.
Case or no case?
Bars lawyers are trying to make a personal attack on girls character saying shes a crazy drunk and it will likely go to trial without a settlement.
Bachelorette party last year. Girls drinking.
Girl was not drinking too much to get hammered.
Girl likely had drink spiked by guys.
Girl starts dancing on music stage for bands with other girls allowed by bar.
Girl passes out and face plants off the stage busting nose and teeth.
Girl goes to hospital - bar apologizes and promises to never let anyone dance on the stage again.
Girls insurance only covers so much of cosmetic repairs so girl decides to sue bar to cover the rest of the medical bills.
Case or no case?
Bars lawyers are trying to make a personal attack on girls character saying shes a crazy drunk and it will likely go to trial without a settlement.
108 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Also, the fact that the friend was with a bunch of her friends for a bachelorette party, it could give the bar another detail to sway the jury. That is, shouldn't the friends be culpable as well for not watching out for their friends? We're not talking about a lone person who entered a bar and drank himself/herself to severe drunkenness and the bar just kept taking his/her money and served him/her more drinks. It's a case where the bar only served the lady a couple of drinks, the lady was with a bunch of friends who should have watched out for her, and the lady may have been a victim of a spiked drink(s).
As far as the bar being responsible for letting the ppl dance on the stage, they have to be negligent in their handling of the stage and show. In other words, were they warned prior about the dangers of that particular stage and didn't correct the issue? Was there precedence prior of other patrons getting hurt on that stage? Did the bar employees try to get the ppl off the stage but was too late? Are there state, county, or city ordinances that forbid patrons from getting on the stage?
Just because the OP's friend got hurt on the stage doesn't necessarily mean the bar is responsible. There has to be negligence. And I think many Americans don't understand this concept. Many believe if a bad thing happens to them, then someone has to be responsible.
Prime example......a car hits a dog who suddenly runs into the street. The owners of the dog tries to sue the car owner for the vet bills because a bad thing happened to their dog. Hence, the car owner is responsible since he/she hit the dog. In reality, the car was going where it was supposed to go. The car owner was NOT negligent. Thus, he is not responsible.
In the example, it's a dog, so what you say may ultimately be true (since dog's are considered "property" in the eyes of the law, different set of rules may apply).
But what if, instead, a person jumped out in front of a car?
The person's "reason" for doing so aside, who would be at "fault"?
I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, but it is, for better or for worse, the fact that fault generally lies in whoever has a stronger degree of control and/or potential for harm.
For example, let's say you were at a gun shooting range.
Cracked out psycho decides he or she is going to lunge out and run out in front of the line-of-fire of several of the range's patrons. Then, some poor, slow-reaction'd shooter fires off a round (no intent for harm, clearly the bullet was "going where it was supposed to go" i.e. down the range) and the round kills the person dead. You may or may not agree with it, but the poor guy is ultimately liable and will be tried for manslaughter.
The "shooter" did nothing wrong. He was there, at a legal shooting range, probably equipped with the necessary safety equipment and/or presumably armed with at least elementary safe practices of handling a firearm, as is mandated by his/her state in obtaining a firearm in the first place. But, he/she has the gun, the greater degree of responsibility. Just like if you are driving in a car, you have the heavy, 60mph machine at your disposal, and therefore, you are responsible for it.
With that said, in the OP's scenario, the bar's explicit decision to purposefully "allow" patrons to participate in the on-stage dancing (i.e. there were bouncers there, facilitating this... less to do with security, more to do with 'is this girl hawt enough to get up there?') will be put into question. Does this amount to "negligence"? Patrons dancing on stage (assuming is done so or facilitated within the boundaries of local laws, ordinances, etc) is a question of risk, as is with any other things, and will be a question of whether necessary (read: reasonable) warnings and/or precautions were taken in proportion the "risk" being taken. i.e. you jump on a roller coaster, by your own free will, and they give you warnings. This thing MAY kill you. Hop on at your own risk.
Imaginary Scenario:
I invite people over to my private property for "EXTREME TASTE TESTING" session. Laid out on a table is 10 glasses, 9 of em regular juice and 1 of em laced with poison. There's a certain degree of risk inherent in the participation of this "game". If a participant was harmed/injured as a result of this game, who's at fault?
That would depend on:
- Did I forewarn my guests as to the risks of playing my sick, twisted game?
- Or did i simply invite them for a tea party, and secretly snickered evily as they danced around their impending doom?
- Did they participate in the game, in spite (or despite) the reasonable/accurate warnings of the inherent risks of the game?
- Or did they participate, falsely believing that the game was safe.
[ Lurker out ]
Damn he quick.
Not always so cut & dry.
In the example, it's a dog, so what you say may ultimately be true (since dog's are considered "property" in the eyes of the law, different set of rules may apply).
But what if, instead, a person jumped out in front of a car?
The person's "reason" for doing so aside, who would be at "fault"?
I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, but it is, for better or for worse, the fact that fault generally lies in whoever has a stronger degree of control and/or potential for harm.
For example, let's say you were at a gun shooting range.
Cracked out psycho decides he or she is going to lunge out and run out in front of the line-of-fire of several of the range's patrons. Then, some poor, slow-reaction'd shooter fires off a round (no intent for harm, clearly the bullet was "going where it was supposed to go" i.e. down the range) and the round kills the person dead. You may or may not agree with it, but the poor guy is ultimately liable and will be tried for manslaughter.
The "shooter" did nothing wrong. He was there, at a legal shooting range, probably equipped with the necessary safety equipment and/or presumably armed with at least elementary safe practices of handling a firearm, as is mandated by his/her state in obtaining a firearm in the first place. But, he/she has the gun, the greater degree of responsibility. Just like if you are driving in a car, you have the heavy, 60mph machine at your disposal, and therefore, you are responsible for it.
With that said, in the OP's scenario, the bar's explicit decision to purposefully "allow" patrons to participate in the on-stage dancing (i.e. there were bouncers there, facilitating this... less to do with security, more to do with 'is this girl hawt enough to get up there?') will be put into question. Does this amount to "negligence"? Patrons dancing on stage (assuming is done so or facilitated within the boundaries of local laws, ordinances, etc) is a question of risk, as is with any other things, and will be a question of whether necessary (read: reasonable) warnings and/or precautions were taken in proportion the "risk" being taken. i.e. you jump on a roller coaster, by your own free will, and they give you warnings. This thing MAY kill you. Hop on at your own risk.
Imaginary Scenario:
I invite people over to my private property for "EXTREME TASTE TESTING" session. Laid out on a table is 10 glasses, 9 of em regular juice and 1 of em laced with poison. There's a certain degree of risk inherent in the participation of this "game". If a participant was harmed/injured as a result of this game, who's at fault?
That would depend on:
- Did I forewarn my guests as to the risks of playing my sick, twisted game?
- Or did i simply invite them for a tea party, and secretly snickered evily as they danced around their impending doom?
- Did they participate in the game, in spite (or despite) the reasonable/accurate warnings of the inherent risks of the game?
- Or did they participate, falsely believing that the game was safe.
[ Lurker out ]
Regarding a dog or person jumping into ongoing traffic and getting hit by a car, there is a huge difference. First of all, dog owners must have their dogs on a leash AND controlled. Hence, if the dog suddenly goes out into the street, the driver isn't liable since he/she has a right to be driving there. The driver was in no way negligent.
Whereas, if it's a person who suddenly ran out into the street, it's a bit different since pedestrians always have the right of way as written in DMV manuals. Also, did that person run out in the crosswalk or did he/she jaywalked? Those details are important.
Imaginary Scenario:
I invite people over to my private property for "EXTREME TASTE TESTING" session. Laid out on a table is 10 glasses, 9 of em regular juice and 1 of em laced with poison. There's a certain degree of risk inherent in the participation of this "game". If a participant was harmed/injured as a result of this game, who's at fault?
That would depend on:
- Did I forewarn my guests as to the risks of playing my sick, twisted game?
- Or did i simply invite them for a tea party, and secretly snickered evily as they danced around their impending doom?
- Did they participate in the game, in spite (or despite) the reasonable/accurate warnings of the inherent risks of the game?
- Or did they participate, falsely believing that the game was safe.
[ Lurker out ]
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Imaginary Scenario:
I invite people over to my private property for "EXTREME TASTE TESTING" session. Laid out on a table is 10 glasses, 9 of em regular juice and 1 of em laced with poison. There's a certain degree of risk inherent in the participation of this "game". If a participant was harmed/injured as a result of this game, who's at fault?
That would depend on:
- Did I forewarn my guests as to the risks of playing my sick, twisted game?
- Or did i simply invite them for a tea party, and secretly snickered evily as they danced around their impending doom?
- Did they participate in the game, in spite (or despite) the reasonable/accurate warnings of the inherent risks of the game?
- Or did they participate, falsely believing that the game was safe.
[ Lurker out ]
you could argue that if someone had an unknown allergy tha tyou would not be at fault but poisin means you know that 1 person will die and if you knowingly create a scenario where there is a certainty of death, you have fault.
If you call me and say you are jumping, and i dont try to stop you I can get charged with depraved heart MURDER. I didnt even kill you or introduce the idea into your head, i just didnt show regard for your life
Depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is an American legal term [wikipedia.org] for an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death. In most states, depraved heart killings constitute second-degree murder [wikipedia.org].
If no death results, such acts would generally be defined as reckless endangerment [wikipedia.org] and possibly other crimes [wikipedia.org], such as assault [wikipedia.org].
The common law [wikipedia.org] punishes unintentional homicide [wikipedia.org] as murder [wikipedia.org] if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness [wikipedia.org]. A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone [wikipedia.org], where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette [wikipedia.org]
duhn duhn duhn... a twist... its not the bars fault... its the girl and her friends' fault
sounds like a fun night to me.
sounds like a fun night to me.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.