Coomer The Hot Dog Douche Is At It Again!

[gblowfish]

This guy is the biggest douche in Overland Park... and that's saying something!

http://news.yahoo.com/fan-injured-ho...155248090.html

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — If it had been a foul ball or broken bat that struck John Coomer in the eye as he watched a Kansas City Royals game, it's unlikely the courts would have forced the team to pay for the surgeries and suffering he's endured.

But because it was a hot dog thrown by the team mascot — behind the back, no less — he just may have a case.

The Missouri Supreme Court is weighing whether the "baseball rule" — a legal standard that protects teams from being sued over fan injuries caused by events on the field, court or rink — should also apply to injuries caused by mascots or the other personnel that teams employ to engage fans.

Because the case could set a legal precedent, it could change how teams in other cities and sports approach interacting with fans at their games.

Coomer, of Overland Park, Kan., says he was injured at a September 2009 Royals game when the team's lion mascot, Sluggerrr, threw a 4-ounce, foil-wrapped wiener into the stands that struck his eye. He had to have two surgeries — one to repair a detached retina and the other to remove a cataract that developed and implant an artificial lens. Coomer's vision is worse now than before he was hurt and he has paid roughly $4,800 in medical costs, said his attorney, Robert Tormohlen.

Coomer, 53, declined to discuss the case. His lawsuit seeks an award of "over $20,000" from the team, but the actual amount he is seeking is likely much greater. Tormohlen declined to discuss the actual amount.

The Jackson County jurors who first heard the case two years ago sided with the Royals, saying Coomer was completely at fault for his injury because he wasn't aware of what was going on around him. An appeals court overturned that decision in January, however, ruling that while being struck by a baseball is an inherent risk fans assume at games, being hit with a hotdog isn't.

The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month, but didn't indicate when it might issue its ruling.

Few cases had addressed the level of legal duty, or obligation, a mascot owes to fans, so Coomer's case is being closely watched by teams throughout the country, said Tormohlen.

"If a jury finds that the activity at issue is an inherent and unavoidable risk, the Royals owe no duty to their spectators," Tormohlen said. "No case has extended the no-duty rule to the activities of a mascot."

The Royals, whose spokesman declined to comment on the case while it is pending, have argued that the hotdog toss has been a popular fan attraction at Kauffman Stadium since 2000 and is as much part of the game experience as strikeouts and home runs.

From mascot races and T-shirt cannons to free Wi-Fi and stadium sushi stands, teams have been doing everything they can to convince fans that the live experience is worth the high ticket and concession prices and is better than watching games on television.

"You have this competition with teams engaged in pushing the envelope trying to make the experience at the event better than what you can experience at home," said Jordan Kobritz, a professor in the Sports Management Department at SUNY Cortland. "You also have the fan mentality in which risk today is more tolerable than it's been in our history."

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 at least take additional measures to keep spectators safe, Kobritz said.

Bob Jarvis, a sports law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, said a 1997 California case set an important precedent when a state appeals court ruled that mascots are not an essential part of a baseball game. In that case, a minor league baseball team's dinosaur brushed against a fan, distracting him right before he was struck by a ball that broke several bones in his face. The court said mascot antics aren't essential or integral to the playing of a game.

Furthermore, not all courts have treated the baseball rule as sacrosanct. Earlier this year, the Idaho Supreme Court allowed a fan who lost an eye to a foul ball at a minor league baseball game to proceed with his lawsuit against the team. The court said that since baseball fan injuries are so rare in Idaho, there didn't seem to be a compelling reason for the court to step in.

In the Kansas City case, a ruling in the Royals' favor would indicate that mascots are, indeed, an essential part of the game experience, Jarvis said. If that happens, the Kansas City case would likely supplant Lowe's as the one attorneys look at when deciding whether to file a lawsuit on behalf of an injured fan.

"If you could get a court to go the other way and say in-game entertainment is a natural part of playing baseball in the U.S. in the 21st century, that would be a tremendous precedent that could cut off future lawsuits," Jarvis said.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

The Royals should have settled this quickly and quietly. Verify the injury and surgery stuff and then pay the guy's medical bills.

never should have made it this far imo

It is the Walmart way. That $20,000 will probably restrict them from putting a team on the field and signing any FA's.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Sluggggrrr is going to need some sympathy lap dances to get his groove back on...

I think that incarnation of Slugggrrr has been replaced. He is collecting workman's comp for developing "just can't get enough" on the job.

That's a brand new diagnosis in the latest DSMV.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by jettio

If everybody around was clamoring to catch the hot dog, then why didn't one of them catch it before it hit this guy's eye?

Could it be that he threw it too hard and too low for the people that wanted to catch it to catch it?

You'll forgive me if I doubt that a guy clad in a giant lion costume replete with bulging cotton biceps was able to fire a hot dog...behind his back, no less...at such an unreasonably high velocity that a prudent person was unable to defend himself from being struck in the face.

Is there no such thing as "shit happens"? Seriously...does everything have to be somebody's fault?

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You'll forgive me if I doubt that a guy clad in a giant lion costume replete with bulging cotton biceps was able to fire a hot dog...behind his back, no less...at such an unreasonably high velocity that a prudent person was unable to defend himself from being struck in the face.

Is there no such thing as "shit happens"? Seriously...does everything have to be somebody's fault?

You really have not explained why you believe that everybody in the area was on notice that hot dogs were being tossed, and that damn near everybody was trying to catch the hot dog, but none among the damn near everybody succeeded in catching the hot dog before it hit this guy's eye.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by jettio

You really have not explained why you believe that everybody in the area was on notice that hot dogs were being tossed, and that damn near everybody was trying to catch the hot dog, but none among the damn near everybody succeeded in catching the hot dog before it hit this guy's eye.

Because shit happens. That's why.

I've been to enough games to know that they don't jump out from cover and fire wieners at you like the Viet ****ing Cong. They bring it to your attention beforehand that Slugger is tossing hot dogs into the crowd around him. That is enough to be considered reasonable.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Then why did you just say that you don't expect it? You do expect it because you've seen it happen at every Royals game for a decade.

I sympathisize with the guy. I really do. They Royals should pay for his medical bills, but they shouldn't be legally obligated to. There was nothing dangerous about what they did. It was a freak accident that couldn't have been reasonably anticipated, and this guy could have protected himself by doing literally anything to avoid it.

Going to a Major League baseball game is different than going to the library. It's an interactive experience with tens of thousands of people there to be entertained by not only the game itself, but by the fountains, the food, the music, the carousel, the hot dog race, the kiss cam, and...yes...the mascot tossing t-shirts, hotdogs, etc. to the fans. If those activities are so dangerous as to present an obvious threat, reasonable people should not be there in the first place.

Fair enough, you are at least being reasonable now.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Fair enough, you are at least being reasonable now.

**** me? **** you!



Oh wait...I mean...thanks

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You'll forgive me if I doubt that a guy clad in a giant lion costume replete with bulging cotton biceps was able to fire a hot dog...behind his back, no less...at such an unreasonably high velocity that a prudent person was unable to defend himself from being struck in the face.

Is there no such thing as "shit happens"? Seriously...does everything have to be somebody's fault?

When you invite people onto your property for a commercial purpose...kinda.

There's a pretty damn high standard of care in those instances. And there are some facts here that are simply indisputable:

1) The Royals brought Coomer onto their property to make money; there was no benevolent motive here. He was there for a strictly commercial purpose.

2) While there, he was struck in the eye by a projectile from a Royals employee.

3) Said projectile hit him with enough force to detach his retina. The ol' eggshell plaintiff rule applies here; I don't care if this guy had the weakest retinas in the world, the fact is that it was being struck with the projectile that detached it.

If I'm the Royals, I have absolutely no interest in making precedent here. This guy's injuries are real - it's a sympathetic plaintiff. There's an ages old axiom that says 'bad facts make bad law' - these are bad facts for the Royals. The guy really did have multiple surgeries because of the injury. The mascot really did throw something behind his back. Even if you think the letter of the law says there's no liability (though I would disagree), the letter of the law often does 'change' based on the facts as they are presented.

The Royals would be wise to work with this guy's medical providers, work with his attorneys and come up with a mutual walkaway where everyone gets paid a little. If the guy's out of pocket expenses are really as low as the article says, his insurance no doubt paid a percentage of it (technically inadmissible due to the collateral source rule) so the hospitals will likely be easier to work with.

Going to showdown on this would be very, very stupid, IMO.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

What should they wrap a hotdog in? It's already in a ****ing bun. Should it be wrapped inside something softer than a bun? Something less dangerous than white bread?

It isn't "clearly dangerous" just because someone got hurt. It took a freak accident by an idiot to get hurt. It's possible to get hurt by any number of things if you're the person who is both dumb enough and unlucky enough to find yourself hurt in a hotdog toss at a baseball game. The possibility that something could hurt someone isn't enough that a reasonable person should anticipate it happening.

When I shot a confetti cannon at an employee event, I had the fear of God put into me during training to not do anything stupid. I'll bet t-shirt cannon operators get the same spiel. At games, I've seen taco drops shot on slow flying parachutes. When you ask people to throw objects that can hurt people, you assume risk. Because a hot dog isn't heavy, the Royals and Slugger probably took it for granted. I feel sorry for them both. Especially Slugger.

But the idea that neither should have to accept responsibility is silly. If Slugger threw the hot dog behind his back, that is not what he was trained to do. You know your aim will probably be off and it's harder to control your speed. Try throwing a ball behind your back to a waist high target, let alone in a bulky costume.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Because shit happens. That's why.

I've been to enough games to know that they don't jump out from cover and fire wieners at you like the Viet ****ing Cong. They bring it to your attention beforehand that Slugger is tossing hot dogs into the crowd around him. That is enough to be considered reasonable.

What happens now is based on the fact that the new guy working as Sluggrrr is less reckless than the previous one.

The Royals teach the new guy to watch where he is throwing to make sure fans are paying attention and to throw them more carefully.

The Royals sh*tcanned the 1st guy because he was a reckless hurler and he made too many pornos wearing the Sluggrrr costume.

Did you ever work for the Royals? Are you that guy?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Because shit happens. That's why.

I've been to enough games to know that they don't jump out from cover and fire wieners at you like the Viet ****ing Cong. They bring it to your attention beforehand that Slugger is tossing hot dogs into the crowd around him. That is enough to be considered reasonable.

This might change your mind:
http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archi...-errant-wiener
You said it was a freak accident. Apparently, it wasn't. He broke somebody's glasses a few years ago. He describes how he launches hot dogs. Including once launching Quisenberry style. No look. Etc... Clearly not a guy who is at least aiming somewhere.

Also, when the court asked him how he threw hot dogs, he responded with: "I would try and put more mustard on it. I guess that's appropriate for a hot dog," Shore told the courtroom, according to the paper." It's kind of funny, but doesn't sound like a guy who took the responsibility seriously. This looks worse because he was apparently doing this for a while and apparently was never warned about it.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Going to showdown on this would be very, very stupid, IMO.

The Royals already did.



















































And won. It's on appeal now.

[J Diddy]

I still remember the loud mouth wench in front of me at the Chicago game where Priest set the TD record. Worst kind of fan to have in front of you, standing up screaming at the most insignificant times (we were in the corner endzone by the visitor tunnel and she'd try to get the crowd riled when we were on offense). The important thing is KC Wolf took care of her for me. Nailed her with a twinkie in the eye. Never saw her again after that.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kstater

The Royals already did.
And won. It's on appeal now.

There's a difference - trial courts don't make case law. Appellate courts do.

When it comes to a trial verdict, yeah - who cares? Go ahead and go to trial on it. There's very little long-term impact from it.

But if you're talking appellate level, it's going to establish precedent in Missouri. If the Royals lose here, that's going to be binding law that gets shoved right down their throats in any court they get sued in. No change of judge will matter. No alternative jury will matter. It's a state supreme court case and they're going to have to deal with it.

They don't want to make law over this, IMO. The time to make law is when you have better facts on your side. These just aren't ideal facts.

Maybe they win; in which case they'll have been glad to have done it. For me, however, these just aren't good enough facts for me to be comfortable creating precedent. Fold your cards, save your chips and wait for a better hand.

[Demonpenz]

Reminds me of that bitch who spilled warm coffee on herself and got 2.2 million from the Jury.