Archive for the ‘Tickets’ Category

Big Bag of Beads – New Orleans Krewe Not Liable for Injury to Parade Attendee (LA)

May 18, 2015

Citron v. Gentilly Carnival Club Inc. (Louisiana)

The plaintiff was a long time member the defendant Endymion Krewe, a carnival organization that hosted parades and events in New Orleans.  Her and her husband attended a parade and extravaganza event hosted by Endymion.  When the parade was making its loop through the Superdome, plaintiff was hit in the head by a bag of beads.  She received first aid treatment on site, and was then transported to a local hospital.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Endymion Krewe, alleging that it was liable both in its capacity as a organization and vicariously for its krewe member’s actions.  Plaintiff alleged that her injuries were caused by the “deliberate and wanton act or gross negligence” of the defendant, and that the defendant “willfully and knowingly permit its members to throw full bags of beads overhand in a space where people are seated, eating and enjoying musical entertainment.”  Plaintiff also asserted that because the defendant required its float “riders to be masked making identification of the individual tortfeasor impossible,” the defendant “must be liable for the conduct of its members.”

Defendant argued that each member of the Endymion Krewe received two tickets to enter into the subject extravaganza, and the tickets had a limitation of liability and assumption of risk printed on the back.  Defendant also asserted the affirmative defenses of comparative fault on the part of plaintiff (or third parties) and immunity for liability under the Mardi Gras immunity statute (La. R.S. 9:2796).  The statute, which was first enacted in 1979 to help control rising insurance costs for parading organizations, provides broad immunity for krewes that sponsor parades, and it provides that anyone who attends such a parade “assumes the risk of being struck by any missile whatsoever which has been traditionally thrown, tossed or hurled by members.”  The krewe bears the initial burden of providing evidence to establish its right to immunity under the statute.  Once established, the burden then shifts to the claimant to establish that the krewe engaged in gross negligence (an exception to the immunity).

(more…)

Nice Save – Hockey Spectator Take a Puck in the Head; Team and Arena Not Liable (CT)

May 12, 2015

 

Lukacko v. Connecticut Islanders, LLC (Connecticut)

Plaintiff and his wife were spectators at an American Hockey League (“AHL”) game at Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  At some point during the hockey match, a puck left the ice surface, traveled over the tempered glass barrier surrounding the rink, and struck plaintiff, causing a head laceration, scarring and emotional and physical distress.  Plaintiff filed a complaint against the hockey team and the arena operator alleging numerous counts of negligent conduct.

In response. the defendants claimed that the arena had typical protections for fans and patrons of the hockey game, including “plexiglass walls above the dasher boards surrounding the rink and netting placed at either end of the rink, in the most dangerous sections of the Arena in accordance with the approved standards of the [AHL].”  Plaintiff was not sitting at either end of the rink or behind the goals.  The defendants asked the Superior Court to adopt the “limited duty rule” (also referred to as the “baseball rule”), which is different from the general negligence standard.  Under the “limited duty rule,” once the defendant facility “has provided adequately screened seats for all those desiring them, the [facility] owner has fulfilled his duty of care as a matter of law.”  The Court explained that “[t]he limited duty rule holds that the stadium owner/operator is only responsible for screening the spectator seats in the most dangerous section of the field (in baseball, the area behind home plate).”

(more…)

Sea Sick

September 18, 2012

Wajnstat v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. (11th Circuit – Florida)
(A passenger on a cruise ship in the Black Sea became ill and sought medical attention from the ship’s doctor; he was evacuated from the ship and received numerous surgeries; he thereafter sued the cruise line alleging negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the ship’s doctor; the court held granted the passenger’s motion for partial summary judgment at to the cruise line’s limitation-of-liability defense.)

A cruise ship passenger sued a cruise line for negligence in connection with the ship’s doctor.  The cruise line answered the complaint and raised the affirmative defense that its liability was limited by the Athens Convention (a multilateral treaty dealing with carriage of passengers and their luggage) as incorporated by reference into the limitation-of-liability provision in the passenger’s ticket contract.  The case ended up in federal court as a result of a forum-selection clause in the ticket contract.

The cruise line filed for partial summary judgment based on the limitation-of-liability affirmative defense.  The cruise line’s motion was denied, and the passenger’s cross motion fo partial summary judgment was granted.  The cruise line then filed an interlocutory appeal.

At issue at the trial court level was whether the “non-negotiated limitation-of-liability provision was enforceable.”  Applying the “reasonable communicativeness” test, the District Court held that “the provision was not reasonably communicative because it was confusing and because it required the passengers to parse through treaties and the statutes to determine the limit’s of [defendant’s] liability.”

On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the pretrial order determining applicability of the limitation-of-liability provision was not immediately appealable.

NOTE: Although this case may be specific to its facts, one lesson to be learned is the impact of detailed and convoluted limitation-of-liability language in commercial transactions.  It is particularly difficult to enforce language that requires a special understanding or the incorporation of outside documentation and information.