Fan Injured By Hot Dog Suing Kansas City Royals

[The Interpreter]

This case could set important precedents.

Well worth reading:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4192358

[kiguy339]

Eh, I'm siding with The Royals on this one. Like the Royals argued, the hotdog toss has been an annual thing at Kaufman stadium since 2000 and is fairly well known around the league. Why did he come to a game expecting to get hotdogs thrown at him only to sue for one hitting him in the eye? He wasn't aware of what was going on around him, period.

[upstop]

Poked in the eye by an aluminum covered wienie.....interesting. However, I never was a fan of projectiles being thrown into a crowd anyway no matter where the crowd is located.

[upstop]

double phone post darn

[coasterfanatic83]

Do you think he still ate the hotdog?

[The Interpreter]

If he's the one who ordered it....

[KI-ORIG-EMP]

If this case goes against the Royals, would this mean players will no longer be allowed to toss a ball into the stands for the fans for fear of someone not expecting it getting injured? This could mean nothing can ever be thrown or propelled into the stands for any purposes for fear of liability.

[LoraX]

You can sue anyone for anything pretty much. The lady who sued for hot coffee at McDonalds for example. (There is another lady suing for that if I am not mistaken).

It seems absurd to sue for this. I understand he had injuries, but why is it ok to not pay attention to your surroundings? We live in a society we blame everyone for everything and can't take responsibility for ourselves.

At a baseball game you have to pay attention. A lot of the down time they throw things into the stands. We went to an Indianapolis Indians game this summer and they were tossing something that was in a bottle. (Not from the ground level, but still throwing into sections from aisles.) every one turned around and started paying attention when they found out they were doing a toss. If they aren't throwing things in the stands during a down time, there are often times pitchers practicing, activity on the field, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Interpreter]

If this case goes against the Royals, would this mean players will no longer be allowed to toss a ball into the stands for the fans for fear of someone not expecting it getting injured? This could mean nothing can ever be thrown or propelled into the stands for any purposes for fear of liability.

I see you didn't read the article.*

* Except in Idaho.

[BB1]

Well, this is interesting.

Word of the wise, wear sunglasses, anything can fly into your eye.

Thanks for the update Terp.

[coasterfanatic83]

I don't know about Royals games, but at Reds games they have a disclaimer at the beginning of the game that fans should always be aware of their surroundings because objects can come flying into the stands at any time. I don't know if that covers mascots with a t-shirt gun, or in this case a hotdog.

[TTD-120-420]

Every stadium I have been to has multiple signs like this. It doesn't limit it to baseballs or bats.

If this rules in the favor of the injured guy, game day in all sports is going to be a lot different.

[The Interpreter]

The hot dog did not come from the field, nor leave it....

[TTD-120-420]

I have read through the article twice and it doesn't say where the mascot was when he/she threw the hotdog. Most of the time when the mascots throw freebies into the crowd it is from the field or, for baseball, on top of the dugout.

[The Interpreter]

Hot Dogs are free?

Really?

You may be right...

Video here: http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=9911944&src=desktop

[TTD-120-420]

It is a promotion. Many times in-between innings, mascots and cheerleaders throw out free hot dogs, t-shirts, etc... I know I have been to a Reds game where they shoot foiled hotdogs into the stands from an air cannon.

If it was a purchased hotdog it would come from an aisle vender, not from a mascot.

[coasterfanatic83]

[The Interpreter]

Merciful heavens. I can see both sides of this lawsuit.

And I learned something today. (Yet another reason not to go to a baseball game!)

[coasterfanatic83]

Terp has never been to a baseball game!?!?!?!

Come on, you HAVE to try it at least once!

[The Interpreter]

I'd have to wear goggles. Seriously.

There's a reason I do knott go to a certain California park.

[TTD-120-420]

Don't fall for his BS, Terp. That video contains about all of the excitement you will find at a baseball game.

[coasterfanatic83]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And Terp, if you sit up high enough, in the seats college students can afford, protective eyewear will not be an issue.

[Spectrum91]

You can sue anyone for anything pretty much. The lady who sued for hot coffee at McDonalds for example. (There is another lady suing for that if I am not mistaken).

Not to derail this topic, but the story of the woman suing McDonald's for the hot coffee is not as bizarre or outrageous as you've probably been led to believe. The incident occurred in 1992 and severely burned a 79-year-old woman. The coffee was at a ridiculously hot temperature compared to other establishments, and McDonald's had already dealt with over 700 similar reports of coffee burning customers without adjusting the beverage's temperature. The woman spent eight days hospitalized because of the burns the coffee caused, and initially sought to settle with McDonald's for only $20,000 (a very realistic amount considering her medical bills and loss of income), but the company was only willing to pay $800.

Also, do a Google image search for "Liebeck burns" (mildly NSFW, I may add) to see just how bad the burns was.

[TTD-120-420]

I immediately regret Googling that. That's awful.

[KI-ORIG-EMP]

I did read the article and from what I read in it, if it rules in the fans favor, the Royals would be liable for his injuries and it could force them (and other teams) to rethink how they do fan promotions. This would set a precedent that would apply to other teams in how they interact with their fans and undertake additional measures to make spectators safe.

[The Interpreter]

Indeed. It would not, at least so far, however, impact the so-called baseball rule. The issue at hand is not the baseball rule, but rather whether it applies to mascots. Your original post seemed concerned with flyballs, not flying hot dogs.

[LoraX]

While I understand her burns were severe, and have always felt bad for her, I would presume it was not her first cup of coffee and knew it should be hot. I remember them putting the wording on cups "caution contents may be hot" and thinking, duh. It's coffee, supposed to be hot. Also, had it been served cold, would she have complained about it being cold?

700 complaints may seem a lot had it been at one store, but 700 complaints is minimal when you factor in the amount of locations and the amount of customers they had in the time frame the complaints came in. I think they had over 10000 locations at the time.

I still think common sense ought to prevail and you should pay attention to your surroundings. If I order something hot, I might get burned. If I go to a ball game, I might get hit with a flying object.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cody]

If your friend visits your house and he slips and falls on your wet floor, he sustains an injury and needs surgery. Who's responsible for his medical costs?

If you visit a pool and slip and fall on wet concrete, you sustain an injury and need surgery. Who's responsible for your medical costs?

Answer both these questions and then apply them to this story.

Its simple, man goes to baseball game. Man gets hit in the eye with a flying object that he had no control over and sustains actual medical injury and needs 4,800 dollars worth of surgery. Are you saying the man should pay 4,800 out of his pocket ? Say this happened to you, would you pay 4,800 dollars out of your pocket?

[The Interpreter]

Sports and ski resorts have always had different rules. The unique question here is do those unique rules apply to mascots?

[Creed Bratton]

My question is, why now? The incident apparently happened in 2009, but it's 2013 now. 4 years have come and gone since the "incident." He's had 2 surgeries on his eyes. Said that his vision is worse than it was. While I understand the original issue could have been caused by the mascot throwing the hot dog and it hitting the guy's eye, shouldn't the Dr. be to blame for not restoring his vision to the original "working condition" or better?