Garnett hits fan with ball

[FreshJive]

My Jr High basketball coach would make very quick and deadly accurate passes off our faces if we weren't paying attention to his demonstration of a play, and instead of a gurney trip we had to run bleachers or do wall sits and such.

[orangedays]

For reference:

Originally Posted by orangedays

I don't think the situation is that bad (and a basketball, much softer than a puck, will very rarely find its way into the stands at 100+ mph). I'd say that the easiest way to eliminate this is to have people sitting courtside agree to limited or zero-liability contracts prior to the game (or maybe have it on the tickets). There is an inherent risk to sitting down there - what if Shaq flies into you? What if a referee misses a bounce pass from a player and it hits you in the face? What if there is a very forceful errant pass on a play? Such things are normal to the game and the NBA shouldn't leave itself in an actionable position.

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

So a MLB fan who gets a line-drive foul facial has no civil recourse?

I don't think that's how it works, is it? The teams settle. I'm almost certain they're insured for that kind of thing. They'd have to be.

And if a Rodman or an Artest or even a Garnett does something intentionally, recklessly or negligently, the player/team/arena isn't responsible? I don't think that's how it works either. The teams settle, as quietly as possible. Money changes hands.

Such things are decidedly abnormal to the game and thus not relevant to my previous post. In this particular instance, I don't feel (and I'm quite certain any court of law would agree with me) that KG's actions were grossly negligent. He did not throw a ball into the stands, he tossed it lightly as he would if he were giving it to a referree, and it inadvertently struck a fan.

With regards to your conjecture about errant baseballs, from LegalZoom (Linkage):

Bleacher bums beware: most courts assume you know the potential dangers before you settle in for nine innings. Agreeing with nearly a century of legal decisions on baseball, a Massachusetts court recently tossed a lawsuit filed by a woman injured by a foul ball at a Boston Red Sox game. Jane Costa alleged the ball club had a duty to warn her of the danger of balls possibly entering the stands. Her argument struck out with the court. Instead, the court found that such danger is sufficiently obvious. In other words, a person of ordinary intelligence should know the risk and not require additional warning.

As always in the law, there are cases on deck that may prove the exception. Baseball owners watch closely. During a minor league game, one spectator was struck and seriously injured by a foul ball as he waited in line at a concession stand. The New Jersey court permitted the lawsuit to proceed. They reasoned that a fan getting a drink is not the same as sitting in the stands regarding the club’s duty to protect spectators.

If an injured spectator cannot successfully sue the ball club for failure to warn, what options exist for the wounded fan blindsided by a ball or bat in the stands? The court in the Red Sox case wrote that injured fans “are left to bear the costs of their injuries, even though they played no role in causing them except by choosing to attend the game.”

This is from the New Jersey State Bar Foundation (Linkage):

"During hockey games, fans are warned that pucks may fly into the crowd. Some teams post warnings on scoreboards and/or on the back of each ticket (hm...what a good suggestion). Do these warnings limit the team or the venue's liability if an accident occurs?

Sports attorney James DeMarzo says that in order to prove a venue's liability, a plaintiff would need to prove that he or she was injured as a result of negligence on the part of the venue. For example, if the protective glass was not at the required height and someone was injured, that person would most likely have a case against the facility or the team."

"...most sports fans understand the principle behind assumption of risk and are aware of the danger involved in attending a sporting event."

So while it may be the case that money quietly changes hands for PR (not legal) reasons, the answer to your question is Yes - legal precedent suggests that fans have no civil recourse unless it can be proven that there was gross negligence on the part of the players/fans/arena in causing their injury. Hence, cases involving line-drives and the NBA cases I mentioned (airborne Shaq, ref with poor hand-eye coordination, etc.) would be thrown out.

[blahblehblah]

game

set

match

pwned!

great post orangeday

[MavKikiNYC]

Not so fast.

Confidential Settlement for Fan Seriously Injured at Blackhawks Hockey Game

Chicago, Illinois — In October 2002, a mediator awarded a 32-year-old wife and mother of two children for injuries she suffered while a fan at a Chicago Blackhawks hockey game. Elizabeth Hahn, through her attorneys, Whiting Law Group, filed a lawsuit against the National Hockey League, Chicago Blackhawks and United Center for sustaining a traumatic brain injury when stuck by an arrant hockey puck at a game in January 2002. In one of the most high profile cases of the year in Chicago, Timothy M. Whiting and Whiting Law Group pursued the NHL and Blackhawks in intense litigation best described as "David vs. Goliath." After months of extensive discovery and motions, Timothy M. Whiting and Whiting Law Group established the first ever nexus of the control the NHL has over a hockey stadium, such as the United Center, resulting in a major victory for fans nationwide and more importantly, Mrs. Hahn. After relentless investigation, Mr. Whiting and a handful of experts demonstrated that the NHL was aware of the propensity for hockey pucks to fly into the "danger zones", those areas behind the netting at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour on a frequent basis. Consequently, Whiting Law Group proved that the NHL was negligent for not creating alternative means to protect fans, such as Elizabeth Hahn, who was seated directly behind the goal when hit by the hockey puck. Although the settlement was confidential, it is believed to be one of the first ever cases to establish a link between the NHL and fans injured at individual team-owned facilities nationwide. Moreover, immediately after the settlement, protective nets were installed in every NHL run hockey facility.

[orangedays]

Something else to support your case Kiki:

NHL to 'look at everything' to ensure safety

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The NHL is looking at arena safety following the death of a 13-year-old girl who was hit in the forehead by a puck that flew into the stands.

Brittanie Cecil died two days after a deflected slap shot struck her at a Columbus Blue Jackets game, raising questions about the responsibilities of teams and arenas to protect fans. It was the first such fatality in league history.

NHL spokesman Frank Brown said Wednesday the league would "look at everything" to ensure fan safety, although he did not provide details.

"We believe our buildings are safe and history overwhelmingly has proven us right," he said. "We have entertained hundreds of millions of spectators over our 85 seasons and we are devastated that this tragic accident took place."

The Blue Jackets plan to wear the girl's initials on their helmets for the rest of the season, and will hold a moment of silence before Thursday night's game against the Detroit, the Blue Jackets' first at home since the death. The team also will promote a memorial fund set up by Brittanie's family.

Her parents released a statement, signed "The Family of Brittanie Cecil," on Wednesday night:

"During our time of grief and bereavement our family is trying to make some sense of this tragedy. Our loss is overwhelming and the pain the we are enduring is unbearable.

"Brittanie was a sweet, beautiful and loving young girl, who brought joy to all her family, friends and acquaintances. We all loved her very much and will miss her dearly. We know she is with God now and we will celebrate her life and memory forever."

Meanwhile, a coroner determined Wednesday that Brittanie died from a rare injury to an artery that was damaged when her head snapped back.

The damage to the artery, which runs from the spine to the back of the brain, led to a "vicious cycle" of clotting in the artery and swelling of the brain, said Franklin County Coroner Brad Lewis, who performed the autopsy.

"The puck struck her in the forehead, causing a skull fracture and some bruising of the brain in the area," Lewis said. "But that wasn't what led to her death. It was the snapping back of the head and the damage to that artery."

Lewis said he consulted with other pathologists on the rarity of the injury. He said that a fellow pathologist had not encountered a similar injury and death in more than 25 years as a doctor.

The eighth-grader at Twin Valley South Middle School near Dayton had been at Children's Hospital in Columbus since being hurt Saturday night and died there late Monday afternoon. She remained conscious until Monday morning, Lewis said.

Brittanie, who would have turned 14 on Wednesday, was sitting about 15 rows above the ice at Nationwide Arena and behind the goal when the puck, 6 ounces of hard, frozen rubber, came flying into the stands.

The puck, which can travel over 100 mph, was shot by Columbus center Espen Knutsen and caromed off Calgary defenseman Derek Morris' stick. The puck also hurt two other fans after hitting the teen-ager.

"I think about it all the time," Knutsen, from Norway, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press after a morning workout before the Blue Jackets' night game against the Wild. "I think about her family because I have family myself. It was just a horrible accident."

Break-resistant glass sheets that surround the rinks at all NHL arenas are 8 feet high and the height of the boards can range from 40-48 inches. Still, pucks often fly into the stands, causing injuries.

Brown said the league does not log injury reports on fans and that figures on the numbers of fans treated at hospitals was "maintained internally."

America West Arena in Phoenix is the only NHL venue with netting that protects spectators besides the glass. The netting is necessary because of an overhang in a balcony.

Fans are warned about the dangers at games by a disclaimer on the back of each ticket that says, "Pucks flying into spectator areas can cause serious injury. Be alert." But alertness can provide only so much safety on pucks.

Two years ago, Chad Hildebrand was at a senior men's hockey league game in Winnipeg, Manitoba, when a puck flew into the crowd and glanced off a friend's head before hitting him in the temple.

The 21-year-old Hildebrand went home, collapsed and fell into a coma. After a week, he was taken off life support and died.

His father, Nick, does not believe it was just bad fortune that his son was in the path of the errant shot. The family sued, but the case has not been resolved.

"A freak accident is a meteor falling out of the skies and striking you. I call this a preventable accident," he said.

Many lawyers say the disclaimers on the backs of tickets don't absolve teams or venues.

"Ninety-nine times out of 100 here in Canada, it doesn't matter whether or not there's a disclaimer on the ticket," said Marcel Jodoin, an attorney from suburban Winnipeg who represents Nick Hildebrand. "Because you don't get the ticket until after you've paid. The courts up here have said you can't impose new terms into a contract after the contract's been made."

Jim Elliott, a Michigan attorney who has represented fans injured at games, said it won't be long before teams realize that it's cheaper to put up nets and higher break-resistant glass to protect fans.


"I said a couple of years back that in 10 years it's going to be different," Elliott said. "The sporting venues are going to be different. It's unfortunate that people have to lose their eyesight or lose their life."

[MavKikiNYC]

In Chicago, a jury found in favor of a malicious prosecution lawsuit filed against the Chicago Cubs and awarded $475,000 to Ronald Camacho, 36, who was attacked by several Los Angeles Dodgers players during a May 16, 2000, melee at Wrigley Field. Ballpark security signed a criminal complaint alleging disorderly conduct, a charge that was later dropped. Camacho’s attorney had asked the jury to award the man $500,000 in damages. The Cubs had argued that Camacho shouted obscenities at Dodgers players, and punched and spit in the face of one player in an effort to instigate further violence.

Ron Artest, anyone? And his own civil cases are still pending.

In Los Angeles, a Kings hockey fan won a $3 million settlement in 2000 after he was hit in the head by San Jose Shark Joe Murphy after a Los Angeles Kings goal. Both sides understood that it was probably not “reasonably foreseeable” that the fan might be hit with a puck that was fired in anger after a goal was scored.

Kevin Garnett, anyone?

In Detroit, the Tigers faced a million-dollar lawsuit after a splinter from a broken bat hit a little girl in the stands. The girl’s personal injury lawyer said that the Tigers failed to provide adequate seat protection, and therefore, were liable for her injuries. A court agreed, but four years later, the verdict was overturned.

Even in the latter case where the verdict was ultimately overturned, the clubs incurred significant legal costs defending the suit. In the end, even when they might prevail legally, it can end up costing less to settle. And clubs and facilities do. As quietly as possible.

None of which isn't to say that there aren't fans out there who file frivolous lawsuits which get dismissed, or which are ultimately decided in the clubs' favor. But it's not nearly so rare or unheard of for a fan injured in the course of a game to be compensated for their injuries.

[MavKikiNYC]

And to top it all off....

As I'm sitting here writing this, with a rerun of Judge Judy going in the background, Judy finds an adolescent's parents responsible for the medical bills associated with an injury suffered by a friend of their son, when the son kicked his shoe off in anger at being eliminated from a game of Wall Ball. The shoe flew toward one of his opponents, striking one young man in the eye, breaking his eye socket.

Not only did Judge Judy find the young shoe kicker responsible for the injury, she asserted that had the police been aware that the shoe was kicked intentionally and as a result of anger, that the young man could have been charged with felony assault.

Even though it wasn't the young man's intent to injure his friend, because his actions were deliberate and resulted in another man's injury, he was held responsible.

Slightly different context re Garnett, but very similar principles.

Garnett will settle.

[orangedays]

I like how we've hijacked this thread .

With all this back and forth evidence, we have to remember that this sort of debate is the case with almost any legal ruling in the US. There are going to be exceptions to the rule, and exceptions to the exception, and exceptions to the exceptions of the exception. Keep in mind that if things were so clear cut, we wouldn't need to take these cases to trial. Yes, I am certainly not denying that cases do exist where plaintiffs were awarded damages in a civil suit but I think it is pretty clear that those cases are in the minority. The general rule that still prevails is that "...most sports fans understand the principle behind assumption of risk and are aware of the danger involved in attending a sporting event."

(Also, just as a reminder, my original post wasn't about situations where players attacked people a la Artest or Camacho or anything intentional like that. It was about situations where there was inadvertent damage, e.g. KG's case.)

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

And to top it all off....

As I'm sitting here writing this, with a rerun of Judge Judy going in the background, Judy finds an adolescent's parents responsible for the medical bills associated with an injury suffered by a friend of their son, when the son kicked his shoe off in anger at being eliminated from a game of Wall Ball. The shoe flew toward one of his opponents, striking one young man in the eye, breaking his eye socket.

Not only did Judge Judy find the young shoe kicker responsible for the injury, she asserted that had the police been aware that the shoe was kicked intentionally and as a result of anger, that the young man could have been charged with felony assault.

Even though it wasn't the young man's intent to injure his friend, because his actions were deliberate and resulted in another man's injury, he was held responsible.

Slightly different context re Garnett, but very similar principles.

Garnett will settle.

Judge Judy?

I don't doubt that Garnett will throw a few dollars the guy's way - that wasn't under debate - the debate was over whether or not he would have the legal obligation to pay the guy. And I'm inclined to believe that if Garnett had the time, energy and was just bored out of his skull enough to take it to trial, he would win. As part of the settlement, he might even get to b*tchslap the guy for being such a freakin' pansy.

[MavKikiNYC]

It was about situations where there was inadvertent damage, e.g. KG's case.

Still, while Garnett didn't INTEND to hurt the guy, his actions were deliberate and committed out of frustration if not anger. I believe he has said as much himself.

Which is why the similarities to these other cases--where fans were injured as a result of actions by players which were held not to be reasonably forseeable--are salient.

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Still, while Garnett didn't INTEND to hurt the guy, his actions were deliberate and committed out of frustration if not anger. I believe he has said as much himself.

Which is why the similarities to these other cases--where fans were injured as a result of actions by players which were held not to be reasonably forseeable--are salient.

Again, like I said before, for every case that you bring to bear where fans win settlements I can probably cite cases where they didn't. When it comes down to citing legal precedent, it's not really worth debating anymore because we are in no position to make a judgment. With regards to the KG situation, I think I summed it up well earlier:

Originally Posted by orangedays

I don't doubt that Garnett will throw a few dollars the guy's way - that wasn't under debate - the debate was over whether or not he would have the legal obligation to pay the guy. And I'm inclined to believe that if Garnett had the time, energy and was just bored out of his skull enough to take it to trial, he would win. As part of the settlement, he might even get to b*tchslap the guy for being such a freakin' pansy.

Without further information on how Garnett's situation proceeds...stalemate.

[sixeightmkw]

its sad what the world is coming to. People are sh*ty

[Five-ofan]

he flipped the effing ball. He didnt throw it. He flipped it. The guy is a grown ass man. How do you show your face somewhere after that? Has anyone here NOT been hit in the face by a basketball? I have and it has been a good bit harder than that was. If it hits you in the nose your eyes will water more than likely so im not saying that he is crappy for the crying thing BUT come on man wipe your eyes and sit there and enjoy the game. Hell get KG to autograph THAT ball for you after the game. Im sure he would have done it if the guy would have just been cool about it. This was just sad.

[Arne]

This man was handed power.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

-Abraham Lincoln

[Five-ofan]

btw, just as a point of refference if next time i go to a mavs game i was offered to let dirk hit me with a bball and then get to have said ball autographed and probably get to talk to dirk for 5 or 6 minutes, i would pay at least double the regular ticket price.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

btw, just as a point of refference if next time i go to a mavs game i was offered to let dirk hit me with a bball and then get to have said ball autographed and probably get to talk to dirk for 5 or 6 minutes, i would pay at least double the regular ticket price.

But would you not take the 500k you could possibly get if you went to law?

[Dirkenstien]

I would definitely take the autographed ball and the 5-6 minutes of hanging out and talking with Dirk. Not to mention you have a great story to tell other fans.

Money is just money and no fan will want to hear the story about how you took a player to court for accidentally tossing a basketball in your face. Now your not just a pansy but a cheapskate pansy.

[Five-ofan]

i honestly believe that i would be happy with the the 5-6 minutes with my favorite athlete and a signed bball. There is no way in hell that guy gets 500k. He might get 20 if he is extremely lucky but no way he gets 500k.

[sixeightmkw]

he should get nothing! NOTHING I tell you!!>

[orangedays]

KG should have his entourage go visit this guy where he works and give him something to cry about. The way I see it, if KG is going to pay this guy piss off, he should get his money's worth.

[sixeightmkw]

This is what I found on the man who was hit. He might not be after anything afterall. read this below.

http://www.startribune.com/511/story/274213.html

[Usually Lurkin]

this was a great closer to that article you linked, sixeight:

In a related note, Timberwolves forward Ricky Davis was also fined $5,000, for kicking the ball into the stands at the end of Friday's overtime loss to the Denver Nuggets.

Ah KG, the leader by example. Too bad you suck and too bad your team sucks.

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by sixeightmkw

This is what I found on the man who was hit. He might not be after anything afterall. read this below.

http://www.startribune.com/511/story/274213.html

For the lazy among us:

Garnett fined; fan distressed
The Wolves fan hit by the ball thrown by Kevin Garnett is more upset by the crowd's reaction to the incident than physically hurt.
Kent Youngblood, Star Tribune

Kevin Garnett: Timberwolves star was ejected in the third quarter Sunday and fined $5,000 Monday.
Kevin Garnett's decision to throw the basketball into the stands Sunday cost him $5,000. But what was the price paid by the man hit by the ball?

Kelly Tempesta is the season ticket holder for the two seats that were occupied Sunday by the man who was struck in the face by the ball and the man's 7-year-old daughter. Tempesta gave his friend tickets to the game, as he had on several past occasions.

According to Tempesta, the man might have been hurt more by the reaction to the incident than by the ball itself.

Garnett was fined but not suspended and will be available to play tonight against the Bulls in Chicago.

The fan? He had another difficult day.

"He didn't go to work today," said Tempesta, who was in contact with his friend moments after the incident. "He wants it to be over. He is a victim, not a villain."

The incident occurred moments after Garnett was called for a charge in the third quarter of the Wolves' victory over Memphis. Admittedly frustrated, Garnett lobbed the ball overhand into the crowd, where it hit the fan on the right side of his face.

What happened next has been replayed and the subject of much discussion.

Garnett was ejected, then went to the fan to apologize before leaving the court. It appeared the man might have been upset, but Tempesta said his friend told him he was simply dazed and momentarily confused.

The man was wheeled out of the Target Center bowl on a gurney at the insistence of the Timberwolves and not at his request, Tempesta said. Boos followed him into the tunnel, and Tempesta said his friend said that might have been the hardest thing to take.

According to Tempesta, the man bears no grudge toward Garnett or the organization, plans no legal action and simply wants to put the incident behind him. Thus, Tempesta said, his friend was not interested in talking about the situation himself.

"He was not mad for a second at [Garnett]," Tempesta said. "He's mad at anybody who portrayed it that way. ... He's embarrassed about the whole thing. The only thing he's angry with is how the crowd reacted to him."

Stu Jackson, the NBA's senior vice president/basketball operations, announced the fine Monday. Garnett, as usual, did not talk to reporters after practice, but the Timberwolves released this statement from him:

"I'd like to apologize once again to the fan and his family involved in [Sunday's] incident at Target Center. It was never my intention to injure anyone. I have the deepest respect for the fans of the NBA and the Minnesota Timberwolves."

According to Tempesta, his friend described the incident this way: He was not watching the play and was looking away when struck by the ball. He was momentarily dazed, his eyes watering.

"He didn't know KG did it," Tempesta said. "He didn't even know it was a basketball that had hit him. KG came over and apologized and he was like, 'What are you doing here?' He was fine, but he was a little dazed."

Tempesta said his friend wanted to leave his seat under his own power but that Wolves representatives insisted on wheeling him out for precautionary reasons. To make matters more difficult, the man's daughter was upset and crying.

Garnett apologized again on his way out of the arena, and, ultimately, the team had the fan's wife come and pick him up.

Booing by the fans and the subsequent criticism on TV and radio have been difficult for his friend, Tempesta said.

"He has no ill will, nothing but good things to say about the franchise, the team and the way they handled everything," Tempesta said.

Other than Garnett's statement, the Wolves were not commenting any further on the incident.

"It's a dead issue," Wolves coach Dwane Casey said.

In a related note, Timberwolves forward Ricky Davis was also fined $5,000, for kicking the ball into the stands at the end of Friday's overtime loss to the Denver Nuggets.

------------------------------------------

Now I kinda feel bad for the guy. Oh media, you are my little gentleman.

[Five-ofan]

Good to see. If i was garnett i would send him a signed bball and maybe get him some tickets to a future game. I mean its no big deal but it is true that the guy got ripped ALOT in the press. Its one thing for athletes to get ripped. They get paid for their visibility whereas that guy had nothing to do with making himself visible.