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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Sorry, but if I was in the same situation as this guy and sustained a serious injury because a team employee was showing off, I'd expect the team to "make me whole" again.

Your second sentence is probably true though and you have a point.

Kinda like if I borrow my friends 2001 impala that has mechanical issues to go to the store and those mechanical issues cause the car to breakdown...I shouldn't have to pay for his repairs unless I was doing 110 on the interstate when they happened, right?

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

That likely would have changed the outcome of the case. The assumption would be that the team was admitting responsibility.

Kind of like when someone falls down in your retail establishment. Though it's human nature, the LAST thing you want to do is apologize.

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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 there 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 that's 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.

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

[BossChief]

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by SPchief

You do know they announce those things over the PA system AND on the scoreboard and make a big deal out of it. Also, when the Mascot is throwing the dogs, there's a huge crowd surrounding him going Throw me one! Throw me one! You've got to be a pretty big dumbass to not be aware of what was going on. That being said, no one was at fault and the Royals should have stepped up and paid his Med bills.

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.

[BWillie]

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Actually it was a detached retina.

If Brainiac threw something at Bob Dole's eye and caused Bob Dole to have a detached retina, would Bob Dole say "That's fine, it was just a ****ing hot dog"?

Totally different circumstance.

[BossChief]

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.

You are stupid

[kepp]

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.

No, but your homeowner's liability insurance will.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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.

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by BossChief

You are stupid

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.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by kepp

No, but your homeowner's liability insurance will.

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

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.