ridiculous lawsuit files against NFL

Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by afgrijselijkheid, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    maybe this discussion belongs in another forum, but here goes...

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflsued&prov=ap&type=lgns

    first of all, it breaks my heart that this happened to the child and i feel terrible for the parents... BUT who the hell are they kidding? why can't stupid lawyers stop encouraging these kinds of insane lawsuits?
     
  2. MikeLastort2

    MikeLastort2 Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Takoma Park, MD
    The judge should dismiss this lawsuit. Period.

    The Giants and the NFL are NOT liable for this.

    It's really horrific that this little girl was paralyzed by a drunk driver. What's even more horrific is that it seems as if the parents and their lawyers are looking ti cash in on the tragedy.

    The driver was sentenced to five years in prison. The perpetrator of the crime is going to be punished. That's enough.
     
  3. bert patenaude

    Apr 16, 2001
    White Plains, NY
    Sounds like the plaintiffs are trying to find them liable under New Jersey dram shop liability act.

    A New Jersey attorney wrote an article about a recent case. http://www.atla.org/homepage/LRaug03.aspx

    It seems attorneys in New Jersey have had recent success with settlements against licensed servers who routinely served visibly intoxicated customers. The NFL case involved a driver who tipped the server as a reward for ignoring the rules.

    This attorney probably wants to show the NFL/Giants/NJSEA are commonly violating their own rules and then try to use this recent precedent and sway a jury or more likely get a favorable settlement prior to trial.

    It may be a losing argument but not an absurd one. Plaintiffs' attorneys are always going after the deep pocket.
     
  4. jamison

    jamison Member

    Sep 25, 2000
    NYC
    I was at the exact same stadium last night, 4 hours before the game, and didn't get drunk. (nor did I have a good time per se, but anyway).

    Incidentally, the parking lots never close, so the statement that they open 4 hours early isn't accurate. They are open 24 hours a day, and people use the lots as a park and ride during off hours. They start charging for parking 4 hours before the game, and one would assume that this is so they can make money on parking, not so that they can encourage people to drink. I think too many people drink too heavily at sporting events, but I don't think that's the fault of a team playing in the event. As mentioned, the correct party was punished. I could see Aramark being on the hook for violating the 2 beers per person rule, but not the team, league or stadium.

    I understand that having plantiffs pay the legal fees of defendants should they lose a lawsuit would dramatically reduce the number of lawsuits filed and that you couldn't enact that law as it would intimidate poor people from suing large companies, but civil litigation has gotten completely out of control. I don't know what the cure is, but we need one.
     
  5. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    having seen tailgating first hand (the college version) I don't think it is so preposterous. I don't know how different the NFL is from College but consider the fact that Penn State does NOTHING to make sure that fans don't drink and drive. They know people show up, pitch a tent, and drink mass quantities of alcohol, goto the game, come back, drink some more, and go home. Yet you won't find a check point anywhere. Its a continuous surprise to me that you don't get more DUI accidents after football games at PSU. People goto football games to tailgate. Without the NY Giants, those fans wouldn't be in the parking lots drinking themselves into insensibility. The Football team should have some responsibility over their paying fans. They should make sure that people don't get into cars that are parked in THEIR parking lots completly wasted. I hope these people win their case and Force the NFL to watch over these things.
     
  6. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    You won't find a person watching people leave my restaurant to make sure they don't drive home if they've had too much.

    You won't find any bar practice this.

    You won't find volunteers at church festivals issuing sobriety tests when people leave the church fests.

    You won't find a guard at the door of every home in America where a person has consumed even an ounce of aclohol to ensure that a bad choice is not made when it comes to driving home.


    There is a level of responsibillity that is bestowed on a person when he or she consumes alcohol. This comes with the drink. It is not a free ride to waive responsibillity. If it were not that individual person's fault, we wouldn't have strict laws against it (driving while impaired) in the first place. To assume that the people where the alcohol is consumed are somehow responsible for another person's blatant disregard for its effects on said person is simply wrong and misguided and sets precidence for the need for waivers to be signed at every family function, every church fest, every picnic, every restaurant, and yes, every football game where alcohol is consumed.
     
  7. skipshady

    skipshady New Member

    Apr 26, 2001
    Orchard St, NYC
    I disagree. The laws are fine as they are - we just need judges to grow some balls and take control of the courtrooms.

    People who are pushing tort reform are large corporations - insurance companies, meat packers, chemical producers, who know that they can break laws as long as they have the advantage in court. That, to me, is a bigger problem in this country than frivolous lawsuits that judges should be dismissing.
     
  8. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    Actually I've been to bars in SoCal where they have people outside the bar eyeballing people

    Is it too much to ask for a check point? I bet if they had one that girl wouldn't be paralyzed. I'm not talking having robo-cops wandering around the parking lots. Obviously people are resoinsibile for themseves but thats no reason for clubs to completly disregard the obvious situation of people drinking because of the upcoming football game, and then driving home. If there wasn't a football game would there be a tailgate? No. Therefore clubs have SOME responsibility.
     
  9. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    That's not how laws work.

    It has to be all or nothing. Sure, it'd be great to have a guy walking around while people are exiting and when he sees someone that's obviously too intoxicated to drive, stop the guy and say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't be the one driving. Can any of you other fellas drive home? Wouln't want you gettin' a DUI, y'know?" Really, that would be very effective.

    But the moment someone does kill a person after leaving that parking lot and is charged with vehicular homicide, is the same moment he slaps the stadium with a lawsuit holding them responsible for not stopping him from driving at all.

    Who's to say that a person is too drunk to drive a car safely after a person has already drank the alcohol? The people that happen to own the property? No. The people that built the car? No. The people that hosted the event? No. It's the person that drank the drinks and the people around him. A check point would be both extremely inconvenient and impractical, and highly open to litigation. Without a set standard way to guage a person's intoxication level, and to stop someone legally from driving that car, it just isn't worth the risk in attempting such a large task en masse.

    Is the stadium more at fault than the yahoos that agreed that he was the one out of them to drive home? Of course not.
     
  10. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    All it takes is for one person to get a DUI after leaving those bars before they end that practice.

    If a person at a bar takes me aside, checks to make sure I'm able to drive, then lets me go and I kill myself in an accident, you better believe that that bar ain't gonna still be there when my lawyer gets through with them.
     
  11. MikeLastort2

    MikeLastort2 Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Takoma Park, MD
    If I get drunk, get behind the wheel and drive, then have an accident that hurts or kills someone, there is ONE person who is responsible - me.

    The ONLY reason this family is suing the NFL, the commissioner and the Giants is because those entities have a lot more money than the scumbag who paralyzed their little girl.
     
  12. Lucid

    Lucid Member

    May 17, 1999
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Put yourselves in the parents shoes, your daughter is paralyzed because the Giants served this guy 14 beers simply cause he kept on shelling out money. I'd be outraged too if I was a parent who's daughter's life is basically ruined because the Giants put money above safety. Nothing good can come from an NFL fan drinking 14 beers... nothing.

    While I don't know how I feel about this family being in the right to sue the NFL, I certainly wouldn't call this suit "ridiculous." Bars can be held partially responsible for serving people till they get so hammered they get alchohol poisoning or they drive home with a .3.

    Being an organization that serves alchohol you do need to excersize some common sense and responsibility.
     
  13. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    To the point where you have to go out to the homes of each and every ticket beared to count the beverages he has at home before leaving, then to the bar to keep record, then tail him into the parking lot watch them all drinking in the lot before hand, then following them into the stadium and keeping a running tally on how many they've had?

    It's morally right to stop this person from driving if (and only if) they happen upon the fella in or near his car appearing to try to drive.

    But to say that they have a responsibillity in this childs maiming is just ridiculous.
     
  14. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    afl,

    I understand your argument about legal liability and legal responsibility in this situation. And after reading your explanations I also agree with you. I also understand why you would dislike this case so much as your affiliated with a bar.

    I guess the main thing is that I hate what happened to that little girl, and hate people who drive drunk (not in the legal sense either, anybody who has any experience with drinking knows there is a massive difference between being buzzed and being wasted). I honestly believe that all the owners of these Stadiums can do something to make these situations rare as possible. I've seen too many asssholes get in their cars drunk and drive home after Penn State games to think that that this kind of situation is an abberation. If this case can push the NFL to put in some kind of safeguards for protect people from Drunken Drivers than I wouldn't have a problem.
     
  15. MikeLastort2

    MikeLastort2 Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Takoma Park, MD
    The culpable party is being punished. He's been sentenced to five years in jail.

    Call me cynical, but I think the parents are going after the NFL, Tagliabue and the Giants because those people have money. And the lawyer wants her 30% of whatever award they might be given.

    The same could be said for American society at large. And has already been mentioned, the parking lot is ope 24 hours a day.

    Why isn't Ms Arnold going after the beer vendor? He's the guy who violated rules by selling more than two beers to the guy. Could it be because the vendor doesn't have millions of dollars?

    Nah, of course not. :rolleyes:
     
  16. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    More importantly, who provided this information? The guy that was drunk? You think he's gonna say that he drank all this alcohol on his own accord, or that someone else (in this case the vendor, the tailgating atmosphere) were the ones that enabled him to drink more? He's gonna say that he bought every single one of his own beers, yet amazingly, not a soul would cut him off. He's gonna say that he was in plain site for each sale and that he was visibly intoxicated after the second or third beer. It had nothing to do with the fact that tthe guy was tying one on with his buddies like he's done a thousand times before. Oh no, of course not. This all was a one time deal where the stadium practically force fed him alcohol.
     
  17. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    get real man... the paul taglibue di not serve the beers, the giants as an team did notserve the beers and the guy probably bought from different vendors each time - this lawsuit is just another money grab by lawyers representing (understandably) distraught clients
     
  18. Lucid

    Lucid Member

    May 17, 1999
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Ditto. AFL, don't act like it is impossible to stop this. Quick solution... Have a beer guy assigned to one... two, or however many sections. That way he can keep track of how many beers he has sold this guy. Not neccesarily to the exact number, but he'll get a good idea whether he has sold this guy 2 or 15 and use common sense from there.


    Huh???? The Giants did serve the beers. The vendor represents the Giants, the court will agree with that every single time.


    As someone who has seen more than my fair share of drunken Chiefs fans do stupid things, it's pretty evident that the NFL promotes that attitude of going to games and getting hammered. It's not suprising that this stuff happens.

    Don't say its impossible to prevent people from getting hammered at games, I can think of a million things right now that could have been done to prevent this guy from being served 14 beers in 3 quarters of football (I'd assume the cutoff time is some point in the 3rd quarter?)
     
  19. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    I'm not. In fact, I said that in my post earlier about it'd be nice to have a guy that did just that.

    Again, I agree, this would be very effective. The problem is that it's too wishy-washy. There is a big difference between being too drunk to drive and just plain too drunk. A beer vendor couldn't do this job. Nobody inside the stadium could. It has to take place in the parking lot. In order for the stadiums to do this without opening themselves up to being held accountable if someone still does drive drunk and kill someone, then they have to make it look like these people doing the checking are doing it of their own accord.

    Kind of like cub scouts or those subway guys that they got in like New York or something to help people out. The stadiums could easily take a "Well, we don't employ them, and we don't take responsibillity for them, but we think that what they do is a wonderful asset to the community and we allow them to do this" kind of approach to the whole thing.

    See what I'm saying? Do you guys see why stadiums would be very hesitant to emplo such people?
     
  20. jamison

    jamison Member

    Sep 25, 2000
    NYC
    I'm not trying to be confrontational, but that's one of the more preposterous things I've ever heard. Giants Stadium seats just under 80,000 people. In the Upper and Lower decks (middle deck is pretty small and is largely suites and small sections of seats), each section holds over 500 people, with the larger sections at midfield having 30 seats per row and 30 rows, for closer to 900 people. First, you want to have those 1800-2700 people buy beer from one guy. Right. No lines there. Second, you want the one guy selling beer to 2700 people to remember roughly how many he has sold to each of the people that bought beer in a two + hour period from when the open the doors until halftime. Third, you want to lock people into their sections and prevent them from going to one of the other beer stands (if you require a ticket stub, how do you prevent switching stubs?). Fourth, you expect a guy getting under 7 bucks an hour to have both the memory skills and the motivation to remember how many beers he's sold and to whom?

    I go to GS every other week for Metro games and I can tell you know that Giants Stadium does not employ those people. Not to knock them, but they are some of the least intelligent, least helpful, least courteous concession staff I have ever come across. And, without making an intellectual indictment of all of them, I don't think many promising careers researching particle physics were derailed by the myriad job opportunities at the NJSEA (authority that runs GS). These are people who can barely be bothered to do their jobs, much less do them that well. I've constantly been handed water bottles without the caps removed (stadium policy requires that they remove them) because they forgot that mindbender of a memory drill (sell water bottle, unscrew bottle cap... dammit, what was the first one again?). What you are asking is simply preposterous.

    They can do two things:

    1. Not sell alcohol

    2. Require everyone buying alcohol to first get a "beer badge" with a photo on it, making it a requirement to have the badge in order to buy beer. You can only buy one at a time. You have four spots on the badge, one hole punched for every beer. You get four a game, none after halftime.

    Now, try getting them to do that, try getting people to stand in line for an hour waiting for a badge, and then make sure that no one has a drink before the game. Then you've solved your problem.

    Well, as stated at least twice they cut off at halftime. Yes, they could have done some things to prevent that, but you are going to have to favor us with one of your other ideas from the million, because the first one isn't reality.

    I agree that people (from NY, KC, LA, Penn State or wherever) go to games, tailgate, get bombed and go home. NFL encourages alcohol consumption through the tons of sponsor money they throw out (try watching 5 minutes of a football game without a Coors commercial), but I don't think that makes them responsible for the actions of stupid fans.

    I don't drink, and because of that I am relatively often either driving a friend home or shaking my head as they act like an ass because of the beer. I'd like them to not drink, but it is what they do, and what they will continue to do.

    The only real option is to make brethalyzers with an ignition cut off standard on all cars, and I think we know that isn't happening anytime soon either.
     
  21. metrocorazon

    metrocorazon Member

    May 14, 2000
    I can tell you from experience since I used to work at Giants Stadium back when I was in high school and used to work at the beer cart from time to time, that there is no way in hell you are going to remember everyone that bought a beer and how many they got throughout the course of the day. Its almost IMPOSSIBLE unless you develop some kind of tracking system.

    First I have to say that the people at Aramark were very strict about beer sales and always reminded me that I wasnt supposed to sell more than 2 beers to a person(One time a guy even tried to pay me off but my boss was right there and had to tell the guy to buzzoff). Now that is not to say that they guy cant get back on the line again and buy another 2 but in order for him to get 14 he prob would have to have spent the better part of the first half in line. The amount of people lining up for beer at a Giants game is staggering and I had to work mighty fast to get it to move and from :45 before kickoff to halftime it was non-stop pouring as quickly as I could. I sometimes never even saw the persons face as I was too busy pouring, counting money, and making sure I didnt run out of beer.

    It wasnt all that bad tho because after I counted my money I could watch the rest of the game(FULL 4th qtr) in an empty seat, too bad both the Jets and Giants really sucked during those years tho. Also for those roughly 3 hours of work I got like $200+ in tips PLUS regular pay, which was $7/hr)I arrived 2 hours before a game and they counted the time I was sitting watching the game! around 7 hours total). The scam was since beer was $4.00 most people just gave me the $1.00, $2.00 if they bought 2.

    Man I should go get a part time back over there!
     
  22. otterulz

    otterulz Member

    Arsenal, Atleti
    South Korea
    Jun 20, 2002
    LIC, NY
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Does the NFL really create the image that you need to be drunk to have a good time? Beer companies have commercials that show sports fans, but they always say "drink responsibly". I don't think I've ever seen the NFL say "drink to have a good time". The only people that say drink to have a good time are the fans.
     
  23. house18

    house18 Member

    Jun 23, 2003
    St. Louis, MO
    In college I was a Sport Administration major and part of the major is a Sport Law class. In this class we discussed a situation like this. The first rule of litigation is to go after "big pockets" in other words you don't sue the guy making $6 an hour but you sue the multi-million dollar company. I do think that if the story about the guy buying more then the two beer at a time limit is true and the fact that he bought pot and smoked it in the stadium then the vending company and the stadium owners could have some liability. My big question about this lawsuit is why they are suing other companies including Toyota and Enterprise (saw an interview with the family this morning, but they only commented on the NFL)? Is Toyota liable for building a car that can be driven by a drunken idiot? Did Enterprise not do a moron fan check? It's sad because this is about money and not "caring about our child" as the father cried today.
     
  24. 655321

    655321 New Member

    Jul 21, 2002
    The Mission, SF
    Why don't we sue the beer company?? Or how about the state that built the roads where the crash occured. Surely, if the road hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been a crash and the girl would be walking today. I'd also like to know about the company that made the shoes the driver was wearing that helped press down on the gas pedal of the car that hit the family.
     
  25. amerifolklegend

    amerifolklegend New Member

    Jul 21, 1999
    Oakley, America
    If the father wouldn't have planted his demon seed in that hussy of a woman, there wouldn't have been a little girl to paralyze in the first place.

    I lay full blame on the parents.
     

Share This Page