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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

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

That "bitch" who spilled warm coffee on herself deserved every penny. McDonalds was serving scalding hot coffee and was warned many times about it. Even if what she did was dumb, she ended up getting horrific burns that should never happen with reasonably temperatured coffee.

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but this is one of the most misunderstood I've ever seen.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That "bitch" who spilled warm coffee on herself deserved every penny. McDonalds was serving scalding hot coffee and was warned many times about it. Even if what she did was dumb, she ended up getting horrific burns that should never happen with reasonably temperatured coffee.

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but this is one of the most misunderstood I've ever seen.

What did T0dd Haley get for his rat salad again?...

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Rausch

What did T0dd Haley get for his rat salad again?...

I don't give a rat's ass

[Psyko Tek]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I bet you never put your eyes down to put down your beer or look at your program. I bet during a gimmick promotion, you're never looking at the scoreboard or looking around to see what's going on in the Left Field section. I'm sure you never read a program or check your phone for messages. I'm sure you never turn to your friend or turn behind you to chat with somebody else.

Launching stuff into the stands is an unnecessary risk that has NOTHING to do with the game. The Royals assumed that risk when they chose to do it, and I'm sure their insurance has made them well aware of that. It's the Royals, not the fan, that needs to take personal responsibility. It's not like the guy was doing anything stupid. It sounds like he was just sitting there.

was he watching the fountain girl?
sue her too

[Deberg_1990]

Royals win!!


http://www.kansascity.com/news/local...e24791023.html


Sometimes, no one is to blame.

It wasn’t Sluggerrr’s fault that a hot dog tossed from the mascot’s paw hit a spectator in the face during a 2009 Royals game, a Jackson County jury decided Wednesday.

And it wasn’t the fault, either, of John Coomer, the fan who was looking at the scoreboard instead of Sluggerrr as the foil-encased dog headed his way, the jury ruled after a two-day trial in Kansas City.

Coomer, who sustained a detached retina in his left eye, now has lost two jury trials over the injury. He sued the Royals claiming negligence in 2010. The next year, the first jury found him 100 percent at fault.

But after Coomer appealed, the case returned to court this week, where jurors once again listened to testimony from the fan, the mascot and medical experts.
Posted via Mobile Device

[tooge]

Bad luck. A wiener to the face, a couple surgeries....He's the Bruce Jenner of the baseball fan world

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Royals win!!

After 2 jury trials, an appellate case and a Mo Supreme Court case, the Royals simply loss less badly.

They spent an assload on this one. It would've been cheaper to just pay the guys bills and agree to a confidential settlement.

But hey, a W is a W...this one was just likely to be a Pyrrhic one when all is said and done.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by seclark

he just wasn't keeping an eye out for hot dogs.
sec

Actually he was he just didn't know it

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Royals win!!


http://www.kansascity.com/news/local...e24791023.html


Sometimes, no one is to blame.

It wasn’t Sluggerrr’s fault that a hot dog tossed from the mascot’s paw hit a spectator in the face during a 2009 Royals game, a Jackson County jury decided Wednesday.

And it wasn’t the fault, either, of John Coomer, the fan who was looking at the scoreboard instead of Sluggerrr as the foil-encased dog headed his way, the jury ruled after a two-day trial in Kansas City.

Coomer, who sustained a detached retina in his left eye, now has lost two jury trials over the injury. He sued the Royals claiming negligence in 2010. The next year, the first jury found him 100 percent at fault.

But after Coomer appealed, the case returned to court this week, where jurors once again listened to testimony from the fan, the mascot and medical experts.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yep. Kudos for the Royals for not caving on this asshole. They tried to give him some free shit, tickets as a good will gesture, this guy still whining because he's not paying attention at a effing sporting event. For once, the system worked. Proves that you just can't sue someone and get money as easily as many think.

Sometimes, shit just happens. Get over it. Pull your head up, get on with your life.

Now, I wonder if this trial would have gone on back when the Royals were losing 100 games, if it would have been the same outcome? Since so much of our court system relies on emotion, feelings, and not ****ING LOGIC.

[TimBone]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Yep. Kudos for the Royals for not caving on this asshole. They tried to give him some free shit, tickets as a good will gesture, this guy still whining because he's not paying attention at a effing sporting event. For once, the system worked. Proves that you just can't sue someone and get money as easily as many think.

Sometimes, shit just happens. Get over it. Pull your head up, get on with your life.

Now, I wonder if this trial would have gone on back when the Royals were losing 100 games, if it would have been the same outcome? Since so much of our court system relies on emotion, feelings, and not ****ING LOGIC.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Yep. Kudos for the Royals for not caving on this asshole. They tried to give him some free shit, tickets as a good will gesture, this guy still whining because he's not paying attention at a effing sporting event. For once, the system worked. Proves that you just can't sue someone and get money as easily as many think.

Sometimes, shit just happens. Get over it. Pull your head up, get on with your life.

Now, I wonder if this trial would have gone on back when the Royals were losing 100 games, if it would have been the same outcome? Since so much of our court system relies on emotion, feelings, and not ****ING LOGIC.

The guy damaged a ****ing eye. The saying is eye for an eye. Not free t-shirt for an eye.

The mascot was being reckless. You're not going to poke out an eye by just casually throwing hot dogs in the air.

And he wasn't paying attention to a dumbshit between innings contest. It's not like he got hit with a baseball.

This was absolutely the right outcome. It sucks the royals took one on the chin for a mascots incompetence.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The guy damaged a ****ing eye. The saying is eye for an eye. Not free t-shirt for an eye.

The mascot was being reckless. You're not going to poke out an eye by just casually throwing hot dogs in the air.

And he wasn't paying attention to a dumbshit between innings contest. It's not like he got hit with a baseball.

This was absolutely the right outcome. It sucks the royals took one on the chin for a mascots incompetence.

Huh? I don't understand what you are talking about. The Royals didn't take anything to the chin.

They found that Slugger and the Royals were NOT negligent. They just overruled the previous outcome of where they originally found Mr Coomer actually the negligent party. In this case, they just found BOTH of them were NOT AT FAULT.

It's like if your tree falls on a neighbors property, and is a healthy, normal tree with no issues. A court would find that you are not at fault, and your neighbor is not at fault for that as well. Obviously different circumstances, but same result. It shouldn't make any difference if the guy had a scratched hangnail, or if he lost his life, the only thing that SHOULD matter is what happened and if there was negligence involved. The end of story. Royals don't have to pay the guy.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The mascot was being reckless. .

Not at all. Sometimes sh*t just happens. No one is to blame.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Yep. Kudos for the Royals for not caving on this asshole. They tried to give him some free shit, tickets as a good will gesture, this guy still whining because he's not paying attention at a effing sporting event. For once, the system worked. Proves that you just can't sue someone and get money as easily as many think.

Sometimes, shit just happens. Get over it. Pull your head up, get on with your life.

Now, I wonder if this trial would have gone on back when the Royals were losing 100 games, if it would have been the same outcome? Since so much of our court system relies on emotion, feelings, and not ****ING LOGIC.

The guy didn't even seek punitives. He sought the cost of his medical treatment and frankly, the Royals spent far more defending the suit than they would have by just stepping up and taking care of their fan.

Win or lose, either outcome is justifiable. Calling a guy who sought nothing more than his medicals after a mascot tore his ****ing retina at a ballgame an 'asshole', otoh, is just ****ing ignorant.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Not at all. Sometimes sh*t just happens. No one is to blame.

Or maybe your mascot shouldn't be throwing no look passes behind his back, especially if he's going to throw it that hard.