Doesn't work that way; eggshell plaintiff rule. If the employee was negligent, the preexisting condition doesn't really matter - you take your victim as you find them.

Every jackass excoriating the guy for seeking his medicals would have done the same thing and most would have asked for non-economic damages as well (paid and suffering). This guy was extremely reasonable but because it was their beloved Royals, clearly they shouldn't have to pay anything.

Like I said: jokes on you guys because the royals definitely paid more to defend this than they'd have paid to just make their fan whole. This was a callous, horseshit, David Glass move all the way. Nothing about this suit was frivelous.

All he asked for was his medicals. It would have changed the outcome because it would have made the suit moot.

Moreover, settlement dialogue is almost universally inadmissible and any settlement would have had a confidentiality clause.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're talking out your ass.

I agree. Though I don't really blame the royals for how they approached it. Even if they lost a lot of money, I'm sure they were trying to establish precedent. A loss for the royals but a victory for stadiums nationally. Sad, because this guy deserves to be compensated. But you also don't want to send the message that all injuries in the stands, even those caused by fan negligence (which was not the case here, in my opinion) are now in play

They set a precedent, alright.

A precedent that they don't care too much about the fans that attend their games, or their Heath and safety at the games.

Again though, they LOST at the Supreme Court. The trial courts do not make precedent. The only law that was made here was that getting hit with a hot dog is NOT a risk inherent to a baseball game. I got that one right 2 years ago as well - the only legally binding precedent that will come from this case HURTS the Royals.

All they did was spend hundreds of thousands on attorneys so that they could avoid spending 20 thousand on medicals and in the process had law put on the books that hurts them in the future.

And because Coomer was not found negligent, the royals will foot their own fees.

Like I said, the Royals only lost less badly. This was handled incredibly poorly.

Bullshit. If nobody is at fault, the Royals shouldn't pay the guy one dime. I hate this culture that people deserve shit. If someone is at my house, and they fall down the ****ing stairs and hurt themself. I'm not paying for their ****ing medical bills.

If you pay for the guys bills, you set the expectation in the future that if you get hurt on our property, we'll just cave and pay you. Bullshit. So many of you also cite that the Royals are a "multi-million dollar" business. What difference should that make? It shouldn't matter, at all. Unfortunately if it gets down to a big business or an insurance company, the jury will usually even side with the little guy, because of you know, feelings. Not only did this guy lose once, he lost twice. Glad the Royals won.

Totally different circumstance.

You are stupid

No, but your homeowner's liability insurance will.

A) the next time a fan is hurt at Kaufmann, the Royals will be sued and this case will have absolutely no binding effect. Any binding precedent from Coomer will actually hurt them. This will not change the 'expectation' one bit.

B) "Multi-million dollar business" matters because Coomer was an invitee on their property for a business purpose and as such they have a heightened duty to him. Moreover, because of their revenues they can underwrite a slight loss in the be of building consumer goodwill.

You really don't seem to understand some pretty basic shit here. It's truly hilarious that you see a case whereby the Missouri Supreme court established negative precedent for the Royals as a 'win', especially when they spent tens of thousands more in the process and ended up doing next to nothing that would truly deter the next possible plaintiff.

Apparently not, I was saying from the get go this guy likely would not win his lawsuit...but I guess that makes me stupid. Fair enough.

No. You being stupid makes you stupid.

Take care

Only if your policy has medical payments to others (which doesn't have to do with liability) and many times is optional. The insurance company doesn't owe you a thing under the liability of the policy, because you know, you weren't at fault for someone falling down your stairs. Just because someone's property gets damaged on your property, from something from your property, or someone is hurt at your property does not automatically mean you are liable.

I understand them being a multi-million dollar business matters, I said SHOULDNT matter. I didn't say doesn't. Notice I said "SHOULDNT" all in caps. Theres alot of things I don't agree with in terms of public perception and the judicial system.

When did I say anything about this case having a binding effect on future court cases or anything like that? I said you don't want to create the expectation that if someone gets hurt on your premises, you will just pay them or cave on their demands. Con artists and people looking for a quick buck COULD potentially capitalize on the Royals if they would just pay out for things they are not negligent for. I don't think the Royals were looking at this from the stand point of + or - of the amount of money they lose.