From Jonathan Turley:

We previously discussed the torts case involving the Kansas City Royals mascot Slugerrr, who blew out a fan’s eye with a foil-covered hotdog launched with an air cannon. Now the Phillies’ could be facing a similar lawsuit after Kathy McVay was hit by a duct taped hotdog launched by the Phillies mascot Phanatic.

McVay said that she never saw the dog coming after being launched by the huge cannon. She is presently taking a forgiving course and not threatening to sue.

There is something quintessentially Philly about duct taping hotdogs. I am not even sure what you do with a duct taped hotdog . . . once you recover from the head wound.

In the case of Slugerrr (which next to Phanatic is the weirdiest mascot in the MLB), a trial court initially ruled for the team but the appellate court ruled that launching of hot dogs was not an inherent risk of the game:

“The rationale for barring recovery for injuries from risks that are inherent in watching a particular sport under implied primary assumption of the risk is that the defendant team owner cannot remove such risks without materially altering either the sport that the spectators come to see or the spectator’s enjoyment of it. No such argument applies to Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss. Millions of fans have watched the Royals (and its forebears in professional baseball) play the National Pastime for the better part of a century before Sluggerrr began tossing hotdogs, and millions more people watch professional baseball every year in stadiums all across this country without the benefit of such antics.

Some fans may find Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss fun to watch between innings, and some fans may even have come to expect it, but this does not make the risk of injury from Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss an “inherent risk” of watching a Royals game. As noted above, “inherent” means “structural or involved in the constitution or essential character of something: belonging by nature or settled habit,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1966), at 1163 (emphasis added). There is nothing about the risk of injury from Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss that is “structural” or involves the “constitution or essential character” of watching a Royals game at Kauffman Stadium.”

The same rationale would seem to apply with regard to Phanatic. Notably, McVay saw the approaching hotdog but a prior shoulder shield prevented her from trying to deflect the dog. Obviously there are many fans who may be unaware or unable to shield themselves.

The dog hit her between the eyes and left her with black and blue marks. That is still better than the serious injuries experienced by the Kansas City Royals fan. However, the cannon is clearly more powerful and can reach the highest seats;


Notably, McVay ended up restating the holding in the Kansas City case. She said that this was simply not one of the risks that she expected: ‘I mean, you would think — I understand a baseball, but not a hot dog.”

She is fortunate given past recorded fatal hits from such merchandize throws.

Link

I suggest that she NEVER go to a hockey game

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I suggest that she NEVER go to a hockey game

In between periods do they launch frozen hockey pucks?

read the ruling by the appellate court - the game itself presents hazards (balls, bats, hockey pucks, etc) which owners and players cannot be held accountable lest the game be radically changed. What happens between innings and periods can be changed to where less (or no) risk is taken by the attendee when his/her back is turned.

quote:

The rationale for barring recovery for injuries from risks that are inherent in watching a particular sport under implied primary assumption of the risk is that the defendant team owner cannot remove such risks without materially altering either the sport that the spectators come to see or the spectator’s enjoyment of it. No such argument applies to Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss.

I watch a lot of MLB baseball during the season. The number of people sitting in the stands with their noses buried in their phones before and during the game is astounding. Here's a hint folks. If you're going to sit in the stands of a game where objects can and do fly into the spectators, turn off your damn phone and pay attention. The eye or injury you save might be your own.

This is one of those things that literally amazes me.

On the one hand we supposedly live in a suit-happy society with countless activities and merchandise items being limited, if not just banned, because of the fear of litigation. On the other, however, we have demonstrably dangerous objects being launched indiscriminately into crowds with apparently no thought for possible consequences. And if the referenced injury was the first that ever happened, then the company could plead ignorance, if not the least bit of common sense, but continuing the practice after an injury had occurred before—? Incredible.

Ummmm.... I don't think I want to attend a public event that involves anyone shooting a device described as a cannon in my direction.
Cheaper to watch it on TV. Better seating and less cannon.

For those unfamiliar, the idea is for the cannon to lob these item into the stands. After the item reaches peak trajectory, fans reach up to catch them on the way down. That's the way it's done at the games where I've been, and usually it's bound up t-shirts, not hot dogs. But, the cannons are reasonably powerful. I could see how a direct hit at close range could do some damage.

Maybe Slugrrr and the Phanatic need some range time.

Cannon shot to the eye with a hotdog, try and say that 5 times without laughing

I took my young children to literally hundreds of hockey games where the pucks flew into the stands, and they shot various things into the stands between periods. Never had a problem. My kids attention span improved.

There were always adults who got nailed because they were inattentive and a few kids whose parents failed to supervise them.

Life has risks. You have a responsibiity to pay attention. If a car runs into you while you are seated in an indoor restaurant that is another matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
Cannon shot to the eye with a hotdog, try and say that 5 times without laughing

Didn't make it past the first!

"The Money Shot"

Other than John Bobbitt, who needs to put duct tape on a weiner?

Hey, at least it wasn't the WKRP turkey drop.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
McVay said that she never saw the dog coming after being launched by the huge cannon. She is presently taking a forgiving course and not threatening to sue.

WTF is a forgiving course and why is the victim taking one????

quote:

Originally posted by phydough:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
McVay said that she never saw the dog coming after being launched by the huge cannon. She is presently taking a forgiving course and not threatening to sue.

WTF is a forgiving course and why is the victim taking one????

. She's just trying to avoid a headline like "Fan leaves game early after taking an unnecessarily hard weiner to the face.

quote:

WTF is a forgiving course and why is the victim taking one????

The better word instead of "course" could be "path", although that is a great idea for a new millenial college curriculum come this Fall.