RockRaines Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 yes, but its in line with dangers of crowds, which is clearly stated as well. When you purchase a ticket you agree to all the T's and C's that are printed on the back of the ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) But does that type of pre-game or "in-game" entertainment really constitute "gross negligence"?? Isn't it also the security guards who should be maintaining order in a section? Well, is that realistic? How many times when there has been a historic Sosa, Bonds or McGwire home run ball that anyone could stop a "scrum" from occuring? I worked for a minor league team for two seasons...let's say the "bat race" (when often drunken fans have to put their forehead on a bat, run in a circle 3-5 times and then run for a short distance to the finish line) ended up in an injury? Should that also be banned in minor league stadiums? We had a whirlpool that you could sit in (like AZ)...if a fan suffers a heart attack from using it, is that the club's fault too? I mean, where does it end? If you have to have a heart bypass because you eat churros, nachos and hot dogs 81 days per year at the ballpark, couldn't you sue the White Sox also? What about maple bat manufacturers? Because they're much more likely to break/shatter/helicopter into the stands than any other type of bat, couldn't a fan injured by one of those make a case that these particular bats are "more" dangerous and should be outlawed because of the danger to players and fans alike? How many times have their been lawsuits about smoking and drinking (even with the warning labels)??? Edited April 10, 2009 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I think we should let AJ punch this guy in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREEDY Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Institute "you lose, you pay court costs and lawyer fees" into the USA and frivolous lawsuits like this one go bye, bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) yes, but its in line with dangers of crowds, which is clearly stated as well. When you purchase a ticket you agree to all the T's and C's that are printed on the back of the ticket. How many people actually look at the back of their ticket and read the small print? Just because its on the ticket doesn't mean the ticketholder has to necessarily abide by those terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) How many people actually look at the back of their ticket and read the small print? Just because its on the ticket doesn't mean the ticketholder has to necessarily abide by those terms. Sure it does. Just because you dont read the fine print doesnt mean it isnt binding. They put that stuff onto the ticket specifically for lawsuits like this one. Not reading the contract doesnt make you not liable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The lawsuit is inherently not frivolous if it cant be dismissed via summary judgment. Rock, Imo, the ticket doesnt cover this. And that is basically conceding that the ticket can actually prevent you from suing the Sox (which is up for debate.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Sure it does. Just because you dont read the fine print doesnt mean it isnt binding. They put that stuff onto the ticket specifically for lawsuits like this one. Not reading the contract doesnt make you not liable. There are a lot of things in contracts, agreements, condo bylaws that are non enforceable. The "small print" may or may not be enforceable, and it could vary from person to person. The White Sox get sued all the time. Go look at the records in one of the posts above. How many got thrown out because of what was printed on the back of the ticket. I'm pretty sure if the judge doesn't think its unreasonable that someone has never looked at the back of their ticket, and how many people really do, the terms don't really mean anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 An important part of a contract is a "meeting of the minds". https://www.faulkner.edu/images/userimages/...%20HUMMELL1.pdf This is not an Illinois case, but Im pretty sure you can see how the "release" is not necessarily enforceable. Under the circumstances of this case, where it is undisputed that neither the purchaser nor user of the ticket read its language, and where the language of the ticket itself is not so conspicuous as to, without more, put the user/purchaser on notice, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the disclaimer is enforceable.14 See Passero, supra; Missar, supra. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Ski Shawnee on this basis, reverse the order entering that judgment, and remand for further proceedings.15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 how stupid, ah well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (CryptviLL @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) how stupid, ah well /thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (GREEDY @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Institute "you lose, you pay court costs and lawyer fees" into the USA and frivolous lawsuits like this one go bye, bye. This may or may not be frivolous. Its really impossible to tell. He could easily be playing a game, or as I stated before, I've seen people willing to risk all their limbs and anyone's nearby in order to grab a t-shirt, so its not so crazy to think the guy could have been seriously injured by someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) On december 23rd my father was walking into a jewel with my mother and he fell and cracked his knee cap. Right before you walk in there is a sign that states that they or anyone else associated (snow plow outfit) with them are not liable for any accident that may occur... natural or not. My mother helped him back to the car and went into the jewel to speak her mind. She walks in, goes to the help desk, and what do you know, the same sign is right behind the help desk. She talks to the manager and they claimed nothing could be done because the snow was an ''act of god''. We talked to the lawyer and found out they would have been entirely in the right... but only if the snow had not been plowed... plowing it altered the ''act of god''. Jewel and the snow plow outfit went on to pay for my fathers surgery 50-50 down the middle... though not without fight. Edited April 10, 2009 by qwerty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) I don't think it would be the White Sox' fault if people go ape s*** over $10 shirts and hurt others. It's meant to be a fun thing, not anything violent. Edited April 10, 2009 by chw42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) The lawsuit is inherently not frivolous if it cant be dismissed via summary judgment. Rock, Imo, the ticket doesnt cover this. And that is basically conceding that the ticket can actually prevent you from suing the Sox (which is up for debate.) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) /thread! LMAO, im sorry, i think i posted unconsciously, lmao, but that does sum up thread, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 I'm guessing if this guy just went to the Sox and said, hey, can you just pay the medical bill and we'll call it even... they'd do it, and all would be settled without having to sue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 07:30 PM) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. Dangers associated with crowds related to non-baseball activities? No. The ticket is specific to the GAME, which is baseball. If this were a foul ball or a home run ball hit into the stands, then that disclaimer may be enough, but in this case, they likely could not disclaim the risk without an extremely specific waiver. That disclaimer was not enough in this case. Soxbadger is likely right. This is a question of fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 05:38 PM) I'm guessing if this guy just went to the Sox and said, hey, can you just pay the medical bill and we'll call it even... they'd do it, and all would be settled without having to sue. He may already have. You'd be surprised. That's exactly what happened in the McDonald's coffee case, and we all know how that ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam G Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 QUOTE (GREEDY @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Institute "you lose, you pay court costs and lawyer fees" into the USA and frivolous lawsuits like this one go bye, bye. Frivolous is a word that lawyers and lay people define differently. To a lay person, a frivolous suit is one that they don't like, typically only politically conservative people toss this definition around. To lawyers, a frivolous suit is one that has no basis in fact or law. This suit is obviously not frivolous. Also fyi, frivolous suits are sanctionable under FRCP 11 and Section 1927 of the U.S. Code. There's already deterrence built into the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam G Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) Sure it does. Just because you dont read the fine print doesnt mean it isnt binding. They put that stuff onto the ticket specifically for lawsuits like this one. Not reading the contract doesnt make you not liable. Does putting up a "Beware of Dangerous Dog" sign on your fence protect you if your dog mauls somebody? No, all it does is show you were on notice that you had a dangerous dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam G Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. Did you see my link with all the personal injury suits against the White Sox in Cook County alone? The release is not binding, period. You want to know why the release is printed on the back of the ticket? To make people think that they can't sue. Judging by your position, it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 QUOTE (The Critic @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) If the arms were big, you'd have noticed them. There was one last year that could really throw-more than half way up the lower deck-havent seen her yet this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam G Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) I'm guessing if this guy just went to the Sox and said, hey, can you just pay the medical bill and we'll call it even... they'd do it, and all would be settled without having to sue. Depending on the bills, you're absolutely right. Most property insurance policies have a $5,000 med pay provision. The insurance will give that up without a fight as long as it's reasonably certain that you suffered the injury on the premises. It will become a bigger problem if the bills are huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) 2 things. The disclaimer covers dangers associated with crowds. Also the judge is going to acknowledge that the party knowingly purchased a ticket to be in a large crowd of people and therefore put themselves in that situation under their own will. The disclaimer probably means nothing. They put them on there to discourage the people who actually read them from suing. If you get a lawyer, the lawyer knows it probably isn't binding. The small print if read, may discourage some without a lawyer from getting one. Do you read it every time you use a ticket? If one of the backs of your tickets said once you get through the gate you will owe the White Sox $5000 and you walked through the gate, do you think you would be on the hook? They can print whatever they want on the ticket, just like small print in long contracts. It doesn't necessarily making it binding or enforceable. The fact that every team has this in small print on the backs of their tickets and there never is a mention of it anywhere else indicates to me they know its not binding. If it was as iron clad as you believe no lawyer would waste their time with it. Although my wife is a lawyer, frivoulous lawsuits bug me as much as anyone. This may be a frivoulous lawsuit, but if you've ever watched how people go for these t-shirts, it very well could have merit. Edited April 11, 2009 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.