Plaintiff is claiming she was outside mosh pit and suffered fractured orbital bone from a person who had been in the mosh pit but decided to assault people outside the mosh pit.
That sucks, but how is that the fault of the venue? There is an inherent expectation of situations that are less than safe when going to any punk or hardcore show or any public gathering for that matter. At most it's an incident of assault by the other patron. At no point does any responsibility fall on the venue. If you go to a barbershop to get your haircut and the person getting a haircut next to you assaults you, It isn't the fault of the shop.
What you’re saying is absolutely going to be the central argument of this case: how liable is the venue? Is there an expectation that they need to have more security (because they do have punk and hardcore shows), should they have more separation between the mosh area and the non-mosh area, etc.? There is a certain degree of premise liability in cases (if you slip on puddle that a Walmart should’ve mopped up, Walmart is liable), does this extend to a venue that has mosh pits? In reality though, I think the venue is getting sued because the plaintiff has a higher likelihood of recovering money from it, over recovering money from some potentially crazed rando who seemingly hit her in the face and fractured her orbital bone.
I have a law degree that I never made much use of, but I can tell you're exactly right about why the venue is being sued. On the first day of law school, you're taught to sue somebody who has money, otherwise you're wasting your time.
Which only goes to prove how clueless the lawyer in this case is, it is basically a house show "venue" this isn't Stage AE or the Roxian, suing the venue is essentially the same as suing the guilty actor in this case except what? you force the "venue" to go up for sale and take the proceeds? You could do the same to the guilty actor. In the end, the only thing you accomplish is destroying a good thing in the name of trying to get money instead of punishing the person responsible. The victim, who does deserve empathy in this situation, would have been better of pursuing action against the guilty actor and making a gofundme to cover medical costs that likely most of the scene would have gotten behind and probably exceeded their goal. And yes, I realize how pathetic it is in this country we have to resort to cyber begging to cover health care, but that is a whole different discussion.
Plaintiff is claiming she was outside mosh pit and suffered fractured orbital bone from a person who had been in the mosh pit but decided to assault people outside the mosh pit.
That sucks, but how is that the fault of the venue? There is an inherent expectation of situations that are less than safe when going to any punk or hardcore show or any public gathering for that matter. At most it's an incident of assault by the other patron. At no point does any responsibility fall on the venue. If you go to a barbershop to get your haircut and the person getting a haircut next to you assaults you, It isn't the fault of the shop.
What you’re saying is absolutely going to be the central argument of this case: how liable is the venue? Is there an expectation that they need to have more security (because they do have punk and hardcore shows), should they have more separation between the mosh area and the non-mosh area, etc.? There is a certain degree of premise liability in cases (if you slip on puddle that a Walmart should’ve mopped up, Walmart is liable), does this extend to a venue that has mosh pits? In reality though, I think the venue is getting sued because the plaintiff has a higher likelihood of recovering money from it, over recovering money from some potentially crazed rando who seemingly hit her in the face and fractured her orbital bone.
I have a law degree that I never made much use of, but I can tell you're exactly right about why the venue is being sued. On the first day of law school, you're taught to sue somebody who has money, otherwise you're wasting your time.
Which only goes to prove how clueless the lawyer in this case is, it is basically a house show "venue" this isn't Stage AE or the Roxian, suing the venue is essentially the same as suing the guilty actor in this case except what? you force the "venue" to go up for sale and take the proceeds? You could do the same to the guilty actor. In the end, the only thing you accomplish is destroying a good thing in the name of trying to get money instead of punishing the person responsible. The victim, who does deserve empathy in this situation, would have been better of pursuing action against the guilty actor and making a gofundme to cover medical costs that likely most of the scene would have gotten behind and probably exceeded their goal. And yes, I realize how pathetic it is in this country we have to resort to cyber begging to cover health care, but that is a whole different discussion.