Couple Sues Bengals, Stadium Over Drunken Fans

[The Straight Story]

Couple Sues Bengals, Stadium Over Drunken Fans
Woman Says 2 Fans Fell On Her, Causing Injuries

CINCINNATI -- A woman says two increasingly intoxicated fans at a Cincinnati Bengals game fell on her, breaking her nose, finger and causing other injuries.

The woman and her husband are suing the Bengals, the team's beer vendor and the county-owned football stadium for alleged negligence for continuing to serve alcohol to the fans.

The Bengals and the vendor declined to comment on the lawsuit. County officials didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

Rebecca Dunn and husband Curtis Dunn of Owensboro, Ky., say the fans, identified as John Doe and John Doe II, broke and gashed her nose, broke her finger and caused bruises and sprains.

http://www.clickorlando.com/sports/26303680/detail.html

If I were a bengals fan I would be drunk too :)

[KharmaTrain]

1. Good...

I used to go to games with my dad and have to deal with obnoxious "fans" who'd been popping the suds from the moment they hit the parking lot and 3 quarters and 6 hours later were screaming and being obnoxious...or starting fights. Most places this is not only tolerated by condoned cause alcohol sales are some of the biggest money makers for not only the team but the city or state that actually operates the stadium. Maybe a good lawsuit may force football to do what hockey had to do...cut off sales or ban them altogether. Wanna get faced and carry on like fools? Find a bar.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. She needs to be going after the drunk guys for their actions.

[The Straight Story]

3. That's like telling people if they don't like smokers in a bar to go to a different one

:evilgrin:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. There is no smoking in bars here?

[Thor_MN]

8. How is holding the people that actually caused her injuries responsible

like telling people to go to another bar?

She is suing the Stadium and team because they have more money than the bozos that hurt her. Now there is an arguement that the stadium vendors should have cut obviously drunk fans off, but the drunks should be the main focus of the lawsuit.

[Javaman]

10. I think that's a poor analogy...

it would be better to say, "going after the drinkers is more like treating the symptoms and not the disease".

[RamboLiberal]

12. Bars have been successfully sued for DUI injuries & deaths

Because they continued to serve obviously inebriated patrons. The stadium had a responsibility to their fans to not let the drunken louts annoy or injure them. The louts should've been tossed from the stadium if they were that visibly intoxicated.

On edit the NFL last season encouraged clubs to crackdown on the drunks:

The league office appears to be serious about getting teams to follow its recommendations. An outside firm is currently "auditing" how well each club is implementing the best-practices checklist, Miller says. That report is due later this season.

Goodell's code states intoxicated fans engaging in "irresponsible behavior" can be ejected and stripped of their season tickets. That's no idle threat, says Miller, for fans or for the teams.

After each of their home games, clubs are supposed to send league headquarters reports on the number of fan ejections, arrests and text-message reports of unruly behavior.

Through Nov. 9, NFL teams ejected over 3,700 fans, or an average of 24 per game. Police had arrested 894. Those numbers are about the same at a comparable point last season, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy says.


http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2009-11-19-1Anflfans19_CV_U.htm

[RamboLiberal]

16. She is going after the drunk guys

But the stadium also bears a responsibility since it was its vendors that continued to sell beer to already intoxicated fans.

[JVS]

5. It was a game against the Steelers. That's when Bengals fans really need a drink.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

9. Didn't The Bengals Beat The Steelers Both Times They Played In 2009?

This lawsuit will go nowhere. Unless there's surveillance video of the two drunks falling on her, how is she ever going to prove that that's the cause of her injuries?

She would have a much better lawsuit if she claimed she went to THIS YEAR'S Bengals-Steelers game and injured HERSELF from drinking too much in order to deal with what she was seeing on the field. A Cincinnati jury would probably agree with her.

[JVS]

34. You're right.

[leveymg]

6. Now, that's the "Wussification of America" in action.

No wonder they're canceling sports events because fans might hurt themselves getting there. Some asshole always has to sue.

[Javaman]

11. Let me know how you feel when you get a puck in the mouth at a hockey game.

and lose all your teeth.

I don't know about you, but I attend games to enjoy them, not get befallen by a couple of drunk idiots.

Most if not all baseball parks stop selling beer after a certain inning, to prevent this type of behavior these to dolts displayed.

I love my baseball and I enjoy my hockey and will catch an occasional football game, but the last thing that comes to mind when I attend any of them is, "hmm, perhaps I should be on guard for drunken morons who can't control themselves in public and who might cause me bodily injury".

[leveymg]

13. That's why there's a lexan shield to prevent premature tooth loss. However, if the shield broke

and I lost some teeth as a spectator, I might sue, as I had a reasonable expectation of being protected from such injury.

The woman being injured by drunks is not proximately caused by the sale of beer by the stadium vendor. The assailants injured her not because they were served beer, but because they are belligerent idiots, and the stadium does not bear responsibility for administering IQ tests and psychiatric screening at the gate.

I have become just as inebriated as they were, but have never injured anyone. If some drunk fell on me, I would sue the drunk not the beer vendor.

[RamboLiberal]

14. NFL instituted a policy wherein clubs are expected to

kick the drunks & obnoxious fans out of the stadium and even pull their season tickets.

[leveymg]

17. Sounds like the NFL is setting itself up for more law suits

from drunks & obnoxious fans.

It's a Lose-lose when anyone other than a law enforcement officer restrains and ejects a paying customer. Private parties shouldn't exercise such power in a crowd situation - it's potentially dangerous.

Smaller settings, such as bars, where there is no actual police presence on-site may present a different circumstance.

[RamboLiberal]

18. Stadiums have security that routinely kicks out fans

for being drunk or obnoxious or trying to go on the field. And most have local police at the event as well. I don't know if they still have, but Philly actually had a court set up in the stadium to charge the drunks & louts during Eagles games.

[leveymg]

21. Those Arraignments must have been fun to watch.

Ever been to night court? Best after-hours entertainment in town.

Bet the Judge also got a season ticket and some nice seats.

[RamboLiberal]

32. Apparently they were - it was in their old stadium

2003

The NFL's Philadelphia Eagles moved to Lincoln Financial Field this season, leaving Veterans Stadium for a new facility featuring an enhanced video security system, increased security guards and more bathrooms.

The result? A sharp drop in cases involving disorderly fans compared to the years at Veterans Stadium.

This had led the Eagles to close "Eagles Court," a courtroom built into the stadium where unruly fans were taken for quick judgment and sentencing after committing crimes at both Veterans and Lincoln Financial stadiums. The court forced offenders to give up season tickets, pay a $400 fine and sit in jail for the rest of the game.

Judge Seamus McCaffery, who has presided over Eagles Court since 1997, said crowds have become much more orderly in the new stadium.


http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_security_success_philly/

[Javaman]

19. Right. no one get belligerent when they are drunk.

:eyes:

That's some nice pretzels you are bending yourself into to explain your stance.

We are done.

and on edit: I was at a hockey game back in the 80's where a woman did get her teeth knocked out. She was sitting in the very upper rows. Way above the "puck fense". (as we would call it)

[leveymg]

20. Some don't need a single drop.

Belligerence is a personality trait, not an effect of alcohol.

Here's to ya. :beer: Bottoms up!

[Javaman]

35. right.

by me pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic, you infer I'm belligerent.

once again, logic fail.

[onenote]

23. the application of proximate cause under "dramshop" laws

Most states have some form of "dramshop" law that imposes liability on commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages to their patrons if those patrons cause injury to a third person. The laws vary, but the one in Ohio is not atypical. In pertinent part, it provides that:

"a person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder’s control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence:

(A) The permit holder or an employee of the permit holder knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following:

(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code;

(2) A person in violation of section 4301.69 of the Revised Code.

(B) The person’s intoxication proximately caused the personal injury, death, or property damage."


The issue of proximate cause to be determined by the court is merely whether the intoxication proximately caused the injury, not whether the sale of alcohol was the proximate cause of the injury. The law assumes that if alcohol is sold to someone who is drunk and that drunkenness causes an injury, the seller is responsible.

[leveymg]

25. Not appropriate to outdoor events where it's harder for a vendor to judge the state of the customer

The operative terms here are "knowingly sold" and "noticeably intoxicated." With people jumping up and down, shouting, and generally acting like lunatics at sports events, intoxication due to alcohol may not be as readily apparent as in a bar.

Granted - I have been in C&W bars where the level of crowd noise, dancing on tables, falling out of chairs, and general lunacy easily exceeds NFL games.

[onenote]

27. you have a case citation for that?

Its simply a question of fact. For example, if the person went up to the concession stand to purchase beer and was noticeably and visibly drunk -- stumbling, slurring speech, spilling beer, etc., there would be ample evidence that he/she was drunk and should be cut off.

Its a fact issue. And neither you nor I know the specific facts. But suggesting you can't make out a dram shop case in a stadium setting is simply wrong.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060122/ai_n16017528/

On edit: the case cited above was reversed and remanded for a new trial by an appellate court based on the trial court's error in not carefully instructing the jury about the difference between liability under the dram shop law and common law. The beer vendor subsequently settled for $25 million.

[leveymg]

31. It would come to a determination of fact. In this case, there is likely a

difference in the standard expected of a hawker who sells beer to patrons in the stands, who may not even get close to the purchaser -- the common practice of passing money and concessions goods down rows of seats -- and beer vended at a stand.

[onenote]

22. the person whose nose was broken by a drunk is an "asshole"?

interesting set of priorities you have

[leveymg]

26. Not for having her nose broken.

More accurately, it is her attorney who probably fits the bill.

What I object to is ambulance chasing and measures taken to protect adults from themselves because a tiny minority are assholes or incompetent human beings when they've had a few.

[onenote]

28. but you don't object to her seeking recourse from the drunks, correct?

And its hardly ambulance chasing when there is a statutory basis for imposing liability on the seller of alcoholic beverages. Such statutes have a long history and are designed to reflect the special responsibilities that go along with the privilege of selling intoxicating beverages to the public.

Don't like it? Demand that your legislators try to change the law. But the lawyer who represents his or her client by invoking a statute within the proper bounds of that statute doesn't strike me as being an asshole. He strikes me as a being a good lawyer.

[leveymg]

30. She can sue and/or press charges against the drunks for assault.

I have no problems with prosecution under the criminal and civil assault statutes, particularly where an injury has occurred. The fact the defendant was drunk may actually be aggravating, as in operation of a motor vehicle DUI.

My objection is to the special category of offenses that have been put on the books relating to intoxication as a crime, in and of itself. It's a remnant of the Blue Laws and Sin Taxes of old. This may be coming out of the libertarian streak in me, and my dislike of ambulance chasers who set themselves up behind the mantle of professional guardians of public virtue.

[RamboLiberal]

33. Would you feel differently if she was in an auto accident

with these drunks? I don't see much difference in being able to sue when the inebriated condition of a person(s) is one of the direct causes of physical injury to an innocent person.

I'm not for arresting persons if they are causing no trouble when inebriated, but when their inebriation causes injury to another then yes they should be arrested & liable to be sued.

[madinmaryland]

7. That's the true definition of the consequences of second hand alcohol.

[Travelman]

15. LOL!

"If I were a bengals fan I would be drunk too "


Kinda feeling that way about my Titans.

[era veteran]

24. I have been teaching severs of alcohol since the 80's on not selling

drinks to drunks. This type of incident is a negligence lawsuit in some states and under dram shop laws in others. I teach how to avoid liability in 3rd party lawsuits. In a bar those libel are server, manager, & owner. Most lawsuits seem to be settled before litigation. People may not agree with this but that is, and has been, the law of the land. TIPS, training in prevention strategies is the course I teach.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. My sister gave up her Chiefs season tickets because of the drunks

She said she didn't feel safe driving home after the games. Plus the games were being ruined by asshole drunks.