U.S. Senators From Illinois Pen Letter to MLB Regarding Protective Netting

The Chicago Tribune U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckwork, both from Illinois, have co-authored a letter to Major League Baseball (“MLB”) asking the league to “collect and report” data on regarding ballpark fan injuries. This letter comes in the wake of multiple incidents of fans being struck by foul balls hit into the stands. Some of the incidents, including one in Houston, have resulted in serious injuries to children.

According to the two Democratic Senators they feel disclosure of the date “will provide a more honest public dialogue and help protect baseball’s biggest — and littlest — fans… Disclosing that information would help inform fans and their families about the safest locations to sit.” 

As of this year all 32 teams have extended their netting to the length of each team dugout. As I wrote a few weeks back, the only MLB team to update their netting and extend it all the way to the outfield was the Chicago White Sox, who implemented the changes over the All Star break in July. Chicago’s other team, the Cubs, have stated publicly that they don not know when or how they will extend the netting at Wrigley Field due to unique architectural issues.

I think this type of letter is a step in the right direction for protecting fans. I hope MLB follows this requests and discloses all of the data to the public. Also, I would like to see other MLB teams follow the White Sox lead and extend the netting bast each dugout. We have seen too many injuries in recent years not to take extra precautions. If teams do not extend netting and the injuries continue, I hope that state courts look at this decision by MLB and start holding teams civilly liable for these injuries.

If you or a loved one have suffered a Chicago personal injury or been injured in a Chicago truck accident, then call Chicago accident lawyer, Aaron J. Bryant for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.

Houston Astros Fan Sues Team For Injury Caused By T-Shirt Gun

During the summer of 2018 a woman was attending a Houston Astros baseball game. Between one of the innings, the Astros’ mascot was launching free t-shirts into the crowd. One of those t-shirts struck this women in the hand, and apparently caused a serious injury. Since that time the woman alleges she has had multiple surgeries, missed time from work and has suffered serious pain and suffering. As a result, a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the woman against the Houston Astros alleging negligence by the team and their mascot.

There have been similar lawsuits filed against in Major League Baseball in the past. I wrote about the case in Kansas City where a fan was hit in the face by a hot dog launched by a similar style gun. That man suffered a detached retina in one of his eyes, and unfortunately he lost his case before a jury. Major League franchises, including teams in the baseball, have in the past been protected with immunity for injuries that come as a result of foul balls and broken bats. All teams put a disclaimer on their tickets stating fans are assuming the risk of these potential accidents and injuries while attending games.

This is often called the “baseball rule.” That legal theory, in place for about a century, presumes an inherent risk among those attending a baseball game, and assigns fans responsibility for paying attention and being prepared for the occasional ball or bat coming their way. But should that apply to antics put on by the team in between innings like launching t-shirts into the crowd?

I have not seen the complaint filed in the Astros case, but I am curious if they have filed a product liability claim against the manufacturer of the t-shirt launcher. They could allege that the gun is inherently dangerous and/or defective due to the speed in which the t-shirts are launched. Also, I would imagine that the attorneys for the Astros will file multiple affirmative defenses including comparative negligence. These types of defenses attempt to shift the blame on the Plaintiff, and will depend on the facts of the accident that will come out during depositions. Specifically, that type of defense would hinge on how active this women was in attempting to catch the t-shirt. Did she stick her arms out and partake in attempting to catch the t-shirt? Or, was the just an innocent bystander? Also, the Astros defense team will more likely than not file a motion to dismiss based on the assumption of risk disclaimer discussed above.

I think this woman faces an uphill challenge of getting her case actually before a jury (due to expected motions to dismiss), and ultimately winning at trial. I wish her and her team luck as she appears to have suffered real permanent damage to her hand, and I believe the courts have gone way too far out of their way to protect teams when injuries like this occur. Especially, when the injuries are caused by acts by the mascots rather than foul balls or broken bats.

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured in a Chicago personal injury or Chicago truck accident, then call Chicago personal injury attorney, Aaron J. Bryant, for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.

Does Rosemont Hotel Face Civil Liability Following Death of Teenager in Kitchen Freezer?

Multiple news outlets reported last month that the unusual death of teenager Kenneka Jenkins at a Crown Plaza Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois was ruled an accident. The Rosemont Police Department issued a statement her death was accidental and said there was “no evidence that indicated any other conclusion.” There was no sign of date-rape drugs in her toxicology reports, the office said.  “Our detective reported no signs of foul play throughout the whole investigation… there is no evidence that Ms. Jenkins was forced to drink alcohol or consume any narcotics while at the hotel.”

Surveillance video from the hotel shows the teenager stumble into the kitchen area, before disappearing around a corner. The footage does not show her entering the freezer.

Right now it does not appear that that anyone from the party Ms. Jenkins attended nor will anyone from the hotel will face criminal charges. The question remains whether the hotel will face civil liability for Ms. Jenkins death. The short answer is absolutely. It is my understanding her family has retained legal counsel, and they are no doubt investigating this matter as we speak.

A civil suit against the hotel will most likely contain at least two (2) counts. One for negligence and one for premises liability. The premises liability count will allege that a defective condition on the property caused Ms. Jenkins death. The negligence count must show that the behavior of the hotel staff and/or security was not reasonable and thus caused her to end up in the freezer.

The difficulty for the plaintiff in this type of case comes with the difficulty of proving causation. The plaintiff will have to show, under both the premises and negligence counts, that the hotel’s actions (or inactions) proximately caused the death. Proximate cause is best described as whether it was foreseeable that this woman would end up in the freezer based on their negligent actions or defective condition on the property. Just because a plaintiff can show negligence or defective conditions, does not necessarily mean that these were the proximate cause. Plaintiffs must do their best at showing that whatever was done wrong, i.e. lack of proper locks, lack of security etc… could foreseeably lead to someone who has been drinking alcohol to wander into the kitchen and eventually the freezer. Without knowing more of the facts in this case it would be hard to predict the outcome. I will say that this will be the most contentious issue should this case lead to litigation.

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a Chicago premises liability accident, or Chicago personal injury case, please call Chicago accident attorney, Aaron J. Bryant for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076,

Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Homeowner’s Liability With Snow And Ice Removal

It’s winter in Chicago and we have already seen quite a bit of snow. Recently I’ve seen multiple news posts from the Tribune and DNA Info reminding home and business owners of the ordinance the city council passed last year increasing fines for failing to shovel their sidewalks. The updated ordinance increased fines for failure to clear sidewalks from range of $50-$500. It also increases the fine for obstructing the public way with shoveled or plowed snow from $25-$100 to $50-$500. The ordinance requires that daytime snowfall be cleared by 10 p.m. and overnight snowfall to be cleared by 10 a.m. Warnings will be issued before tickets are given. The word from the city hall law department  was that the increased fines are aimed at the “repeat, flagrant offender.”

This raises questions for many business and homeowners as to what their civil liability would be if they do comply and shovel their walk but someone still slips and injures themselves. In other words, what if the homeowner shoveled their walk from a natural accumulation of snow but that they were accused of doing a negligent job?

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on a recent case that clarified the 1979 Snow and Ice Removal Act,745 ILCS 75/1. In a recent case, Murphy-Hylton v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc., a suburban woman sued her condominium association and property management company for serious injuries from a slip and fall on ice.  In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment and sent the case back to the trial court. “The Snow and Ice Removal Act provides immunity to residential property owners from claims of liability for injuries allegedly caused by icy sidewalks that result from negligent snow and ice removal efforts, but it does not extend to immunize them from claims of liability for injuries allegedly caused by icy sidewalks that result from an otherwise negligent failure to maintain the premises.”

The Court has clarified what the law has always been. If a homeowner shovels her walk from a natural accumulation of snow or ice fall, they cannot be held liable in civil court for injuries resulting from said shoveling. (i.e. if the plaintiff sues that the homeowner did a negligent job of shoveling the walk). Where a homeowner can be liable is if the ice is a result of a leaky spout or runoff that is not a result of a natural accumulation. Those were the alleged facts in the above Murphy-Hylton case.

The lesson here is that if you are a homeowner in the city, you definitely want to remove snow and ice from your sidewalk in order to avoid a fine. But, civil liability will most likely be avoided if you attempt to clear the snow and someone slips and falls anyway. I am in know way advocating to home and business owners to lazily shovel their walks. I am just trying to report what our Supreme Court clarified in this recent court case along with the ramifications could be from the city if you avoid to remove the snow and ice.

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a Chicago slip and fall or Chicago personal injury case, then call Chicago personal injury lawyer, Aaron J. Bryant, for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.

KC Royals Latest Team To Extend Protective Netting Behind Home Plate

Reigning World Series Champion Kansas City Royals are the latest franchise to announce that they will extend protective netting all the way up the first and third base lines. They are following a recommendation made by Major League Baseball’s commissioner’s office that all 30 teams extend protective netting beyond the typical area directly behind home plate.

The Royal’s netting will extend to the end of each dugout, which will reach first and third base (approximately 90 feet). The Royals along with Phillies, Rays and Cubs have also said they would follow the recommendation. These teams, along with Major League Baseball, are doing the right thing by extending the netting. There have been numerous injuries at various venues, including at Boston’s Fenway Park last summer when a woman was rushed to the emergency room after taking a baseball to the head.

Baseball franchises have protected themselves from civil liability for years by adding a waiver of liability on the back of each of their tickets, stating that by paying for admission into a game they are agreeing to waive any liability to the major league franchises for any injuries that come from flying baseballs, bats etc… Many states, including Illinois, have imposed statutes protecting major league sports teams from civil liability for injuries that could arise from balls flying into the stands and injuring someone. These waivers and statutes have made it virtually impossible for fans to seek compensation for injuries they may have received for these types of accidents. I believe teams have been reluctant to extend netting in the past because they did not want to open the door to future litigation by admitting that the lack of netting created a dangerous atmosphere for fans. Regardless, this is the right move and I believe prevent serious personal injuries to fans that are sitting defenseless to lightening fast line drives and broken bats.

I would like to see all 30 baseball franchises extend their protective netting.

If you or someone you love has been injured in a Chicago personal injury case or Chicago car crash, then call Chicago personal injury lawyer, Aaron J. Bryant, for a free legal consultation at 312-614-1076.