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 BWillie

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.

That is your house. Not a business. If you have a business and someone slips and falls in your store because of something that could have been avoided, you could sue and you would win. And rightfully so. If the floor is too slippery to walk, then it wasn't your fault you fell.

The guy didn't want a hot dog. Common sense says if hr doesn't want it, then don't throw it to him. Let alone throw it hard with no arc. Let alone behind the back. Let alone in foil vs bubble wrap, which was advised.

[gblowfish]

What a drag it would be to be known as "Coomer the Hot Dog Douche."

[chiefzilla1501]

Here's another hypothetical. Mascot wasn't looking at where he was throwing. What if he threw it to a 4 year old. Or someone who was disabled and had poor reflexes.

Again, why in the world would you throw that shit behind your back?

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That is your house. Not a business. If you have a business and someone slips and falls in your store because of something that could have been avoided, you could sue and you would win. And rightfully so. If the floor is too slippery to walk, then it wasn't your fault you fell.

It isn't that cut and dried.

If Bob Dole has 20 customers in the store and someone spills their Icee, there is no expectation that Bob Dole stop everything immediately and mop up the mess.

And don't think people have not spilled their own shit and then slipped in it on purpose.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

What a drag it would be to be known as "Coomer the Hot Dog Douche."

I don't have all the details and haven't read through the thread...but from the limited info I have it seems he didn't do anything wrong by asking for his medical to be paid after being injured at the ballpark by something with nothing to do with the game.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

It isn't that cut and dried.

If Bob Dole has 20 customers in the store and someone spills their Icee, there is no expectation that Bob Dole stop everything immediately and mop up the mess.

And don't think people have not spilled their own shit and then slipped in it on purpose.

That's not negligence.

Negligence is someone spilling their ice on the floor and someone slipping on it an hour later after the store had ample time to clean up the mess...or at least put up "wet floor" signs.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Here's another hypothetical. Mascot wasn't looking at where he was throwing. What if he threw it to a 4 year old. Or someone who was disabled and had poor reflexes.

Again, why in the world would you throw that shit behind your back?

Did you see the diagram of where the hot dog was thrown from, how far it traveled, and what visible obstructions if any were between Coomer and the Slugger? Do you know all of the other variables involved?

Yeah, unfortunately if it was a 4 year old or a disabled person, the court would have probably made them pay. Which is stupid. It SHOULDNT matter who it was, or what it was, but you know, feelings. I'm sure the jury would have been much more sympathetic to a child or a woman. Unfortunately that's just how the world works. More logic, less feelings IMO.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Did you see the diagram of where the hot dog was thrown from, how far it traveled, and what visible obstructions if any were between Coomer and the Slugger? Do you know all of the other variables involved?

Yeah, unfortunately if it was a 4 year old or a disabled person, the court would have probably made them pay. Which is stupid. It SHOULDNT matter who it was, or what it was, but you know, feelings. I'm sure the jury would have been much more sympathetic to a child or a woman. Unfortunately that's just how the world works. More logic, less feelings IMO.

In fairness, no I have not seen diagrams. Only that it was behind his back, supposedly "no look", and was thrown with low arc.

I just see the standard as this... If a fan doesn't want a hot dog, don't throw it at him. It would be one thing for me if the Mascot just tossed it and missed. It's another to just wing hot dogs around with little control over where they're going. The hot dog could have been tossed underhand. Should have been tossed with more arc (slugrrrr admitted to this). Should have been tossed to someone who was paying attention to him. If we go a step further, it could have easily have been wrapped in bubble wrap, which is how most of these promotions go. So there were several areas where the Royals but especially the employee were careless. I get it wasn't intentional negligence but it's still negligence.

[kepp]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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.

You're acting like you would have a choice whether to pay someone or not for getting hurt on your property. You wouldn't. The person's medical insurance company would absolutely attempt to recover the money either from your homeowner's insurance, or by suing you directly.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by kepp

You're acting like you would have a choice whether to pay someone or not for getting hurt on your property. You wouldn't. The person's medical insurance company would absolutely attempt to recover the money either from your homeowner's insurance, or by suing you directly.

The suit wouldn't be successful unless the homeowner or business owner was liable. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Most homeowners policies that have medical payments for others are capped at a very low amount (ie $1000), and is just there for small accidental incidents and to be used more or less as a goodwill measure. I believe in some instances/areas, people can opt completely out of that type of coverage for a lower premium. But surely your liability and homeowner's coverage is not paying for significant injuries to any visitor or friend at your home, unless you are literally at fault.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

The suit wouldn't be successful unless the homeowner or business owner was liable. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Most homeowners policies that have medical payments for others are capped at a very low amount (ie $1000), and is just there for small accidental incidents and to be used more or less as a goodwill measure. I believe in some instances/areas, people can opt completely out of that type of coverage for a lower premium. But surely your liability and homeowner's coverage is not paying for significant injuries to any visitor or friend at your home, unless you are literally at fault.

1) the Royals employee was clearly at fault. If not for the Royal employee, the fan would have never been hurt. There's that standard. So it's not the same as your example where it's just a casual slip and fall. In this case, the injury happened because somebody else contributed to it
2) the accident could have been avoided. The Royals could have bubble wrapped the hot dogs and the mascot could and shouldn't have been throwing no-look, behind-the back tosses especially to people who weren't looking at him
3) homeowner's coverage is different from commercial property coverage. As a businessowner, you are liable for the safety of customers you invite into your place of business and you are held to a much higher standard. it's why all businesses have general liability insurance

If not for the mascot throwing the shit behind his back, I'd agree with you. For that matter, nobody probably gets hurt if the mascot throws the hot dog out there like a normal person. If anything, chances of accident are significantly reduced.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

1) the Royals employee was clearly at fault.

And you are clearly wrong.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

And you are clearly wrong.

I don't see what's hard about this.

He threw a hot dog at a guy who never asked for one. And it's because he wasn't looking.

I find it funny that in this scenario, two guys weren't looking at each other. And the guy who gets blamed isn't the thrower... apparently it was the guy who didn't catch it. How does that make any sense?