Hamilton's Nightmare season continues

[calsnowskier]

Apparently, he threw the ball that the fan was trying to get when he fell to his death.

You can not blame Hamilton for this, of course, but if I were the Rangers, I would keep a CLOSE eye on Hamilton for a while. This is the type of thing that can cause a healthy-minded person to spiral, and Hamilton is NOT a healthy-minded person...

 

[Robotech]

Apparently, he threw the ball that the fan was trying to get when he fell to his death.

You can not blame Hamilton for this, of course, but if I were the Rangers, I would keep a CLOSE eye on Hamilton for a while. This is the type of thing that can cause a healthy-minded person to spiral, and Hamilton is NOT a healthy-minded person...

I'm sure the Rangers have sent counselors his way already. He's not at fault at all. He was just a domino in a chain of unfortunate events. Only cause in fact; no proximate cause. I think there is liability on the part of the Rangers. I just saw a picture of the railing where he fell and it looks way too low. It looks to be below the waist of the average man.

Tzill, what do you think? I am not a Texas lawyer, but just thinking about general legal principles, I think the family's got a good case. I don't know if there is a waiver clause/assumption of risk clause on Rangers' tickets, but I doubt a judge would enforce it even if there were such a clause.

 

[mistgl]

I'm sure the Rangers have sent counselors his way already. He's not at fault at all. He was just a domino in a chain of unfortunate events. Only cause in fact; no proximate cause. I think there is liability on the part of the Rangers. I just saw a picture of the railing where he fell and it looks way too low. It looks to be below the waist of the average man.

Tzill, what do you think? I am not a Texas lawyer, but just thinking about general legal principles, I think the family's got a good case. I don't know if there is a waiver clause/assumption of risk clause on Rangers' tickets, but I doubt a judge would enforce it even if there were such a clause.

There is. All sporting events tickets have this piece on the back of them about assumed risk. It essentially says that by using the ticket to gain admission that you cant sue them for anything that happens to you. The whole situation sucks, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sign that points out in big bolded letters not to climb on the railing.

 

[Robotech]

There is. All sporting events tickets have this piece on the back of them about assumed risk. It essentially says that by using the ticket to gain admission that you cant sue them for anything that happens to you. The whole situation sucks, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sign that points out in big bolded letters not to climb on the railing.

I thought it would say something like that. It doesn't mean it is enforceable, though. There are probably many good arguments why it shouldn't be.

I wonder if there were a warning sign where this man fell. I think that would help the Rangers defense if there were.

 

[mistgl]

I thought it would say something like that. It doesn't mean it is enforceable, though. There are probably many good arguments why it shouldn't be.

I wonder if there were a warning sign where this man fell. I think that would help the Rangers defense if there were.

You would be surprised. I'm pretty sure its that same kind of out clause on the back of the ticket that keeps all the people who have been hurt on that coke slide (The Guzzler?) from actually getting anywhere with their lawsuits. Granted they're not dead, and that kind of ambulance chaser case is usually an attempt to be annoying to the point where the defendant is offered a settlement to just go away.

 

[tzill]

I'm sure the Rangers have sent counselors his way already. He's not at fault at all. He was just a domino in a chain of unfortunate events. Only cause in fact; no proximate cause. I think there is liability on the part of the Rangers. I just saw a picture of the railing where he fell and it looks way too low. It looks to be below the waist of the average man.

Tzill, what do you think? I am not a Texas lawyer, but just thinking about general legal principles, I think the family's got a good case. I don't know if there is a waiver clause/assumption of risk clause on Rangers' tickets, but I doubt a judge would enforce it even if there were such a clause.

Well, a lot depends upon things we don't know: is the railing up to code? Was it properly installed? Was the victim intoxicated, shoved, pushed?

Shot in the dark guess: there is no winning cause of action but the Rangers will settle and write it off as a cost of doing business.

 

[mistgl]

Well, a lot depends upon things we don't know: is the railing up to code? Was it properly installed? Was the victim intoxicated, shoved, pushed?

Shot in the dark guess: there is no winning cause of action but the Rangers will settle and write it off as a cost of doing business.

Fox just did a piece on it and they said the railing was up to code.

 

[Robotech]

Well, a lot depends upon things we don't know: is the railing up to code? Was it properly installed? Was the victim intoxicated, shoved, pushed?

Shot in the dark guess: there is no winning cause of action but the Rangers will settle and write it off as a cost of doing business.

You're right. There's a lot we don't know. It's been a while since I was in Torts, and I can't remember what all the doctrines are. If something is not up to code, then it's negligence per se. But if it were the other way around, then I assume the defendant is within a safe harbor and the cause of action would fail. But, I don't really know. I don't practice personal injury and I am not a member of the Texas bar.

 

[Robotech]

Fox just did a piece on it and they said the railing was up to code.

Fox takes the side of the corporation. Big shocker there.

 

[Giantsmojo]

Fox takes the side of the corporation. Big shocker there.

Yeah, it would be news if Fox ever took the side of the working class.

But they are probably right about the rails being up to code because after all it's Texas, as different states have different codes and Texas tends to be very conservative when it comes to safety regulations.