PDA

View Full Version : Someone's suing the Sox over falling debris - a golfball


hsnterprize
08-09-2004, 07:48 AM
According to a report from CBS 2 this morning, a Chicago woman is suing the Sox because, as she puts it, a lack of security caused a drunken man to tee off a golf ball in a parking lot after a game. After she left that game, the golf ball hit her in the mouth, nose, and teeth. She says she's suffering from a "severe, permant, and disfiguring" injury because of the hit.

Well...at least she wasn't hit with falling concrete. Personally, I don't think this suit will hold up. I wonder if that shot hooked or sliced?

DMarte708
08-09-2004, 08:17 AM
It appears the Chicago media is feverisly compiling their Anti-Sox segments to compensate for the concrete waterfall at Wrigley.

Anyone notice these incidents always surface at the most inopportune times. First, the fight occuring between brothers and an off duty cop is referenced one week after the incident (Sox were on a roll), and now golfgate has emerged nearly one year after the initial accident. (We're hovering around a 6 game deficit in the standings). I know there's no substantial evidence of media foul play; let's just say its the Hangar in me. :D:

Personally, I'm curious why it took this long to file charges? Wouldn't it have been smart to immediately sue the White Sox following her obstruction of a golf balls path? Could the Tribune have persuaded this women to come forward to deflect attention off the Crumbling Confines?


Here's more details on the charges.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-soxsuit09.html

For anyone curious, Chicago Sports did NOT reference golfgate on their site. Immediately after reading the Sun Times article I checked over to see if Knue were up to his old tricks.

:knue
"Don't worry Sox Fans.....I'll find someway of referencing William Ligue into this story. The public must NEVER forget. If they do by some chance I'll link it to the White Sox portion of Chicago Sports."

woodenleg
08-09-2004, 10:26 AM
....because getting hit by golf balls is sure to become a recurring problem that puts thousands of people in danger.


I can't believe that this petty **** is even a story!

jabrch
08-09-2004, 10:28 AM
She isn't going to get anywhere suing the Sox over this. This is a non-story.

Railsplitter
08-09-2004, 10:34 AM
She isn't going to get anywhere suing the Sox over this. This is a non-story.
The only reason she's doing this is she has no idea who did it and the Sox have deeper pockets than the parking lot duffer.

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 11:12 AM
Unfortunately, if they can prove that the drunken moron was over-served inside the park, then the Sox can be held liable. It's the same priciple that allows people to sue bars where someone was over-served before they killed someone.

While that is stupid, it is the what the law allows, and as such, she may have a case.

duke of dorwood
08-09-2004, 11:34 AM
And she has 2 years to file a claim-perhaps just wanted medical bills to accumulate to increase possible settlement down the road.

Palehose13
08-09-2004, 11:45 AM
Unfortunately, if they can prove that the drunken moron was over-served inside the park, then the Sox can be held liable. It's the same priciple that allows people to sue bars where someone was over-served before they killed someone.

While that is stupid, it is the what the law allows, and as such, she may have a case.

Does she even know who hit it and if so does she know for certain he/she was drunk? I mean, there are some dumb people out there too.

voodoochile
08-09-2004, 11:52 AM
Unfortunately, if they can prove that the drunken moron was over-served inside the park, then the Sox can be held liable. It's the same priciple that allows people to sue bars where someone was over-served before they killed someone.

While that is stupid, it is the what the law allows, and as such, she may have a case.
If they don't know who it is and did not catch the guy/gal at the time, how can they prove he/she was drunk?

Yeah, you'd like to believe that someone would HAVE to be drunk to do something this stupid, but without some kind of evidence, it seems moot.

The Sox should offer a reward for information leading to the arrest of the idiot in question. I bet there is at least one person who witnessed the actual teeing off who knows who did it and would be willing to come forward for a few grand.

Of course then they might have to deal with the dram shop implications of the situation and JR might balk at that idea.

Jerko
08-09-2004, 11:54 AM
They said the guy's name in the article so it appears she does know who hit her.

Palehose13
08-09-2004, 12:30 PM
They said the guy's name in the article so it appears she does know who hit her.

I guess it would help if I read the article. :redface:

voodoochile
08-09-2004, 12:34 PM
I guess it would help if I read the article. :redface:
Yeah...

What She said...^ :D:

voodoochile
08-09-2004, 12:35 PM
This could NEVER happen at Wrigley Field.

They don't have parking lots...:D:

habibharu
08-09-2004, 12:51 PM
yeah i heard about this on mariottis show. why the hell does **** like this keep happening at our park?!!!:angry: :angry:

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 01:24 PM
yeah i heard about this on mariottis show. why the hell does **** like this keep happening at our park?!!!:angry: :angry:
Stupid **** happens everywhere. They just report it when it happens at the Cell.

jeremyb1
08-09-2004, 01:36 PM
Personally, I'm curious why it took this long to file charges? Wouldn't it have been smart to immediately sue the White Sox following her obstruction of a golf balls path?

Dude, that's sick. Frivolous law suit or not the woman was struck in the face by a golfball! People routinely get their heads cracked open when struck in the head by ball with a fly ball trajectory. I can't imagine someone begin hit in the face by a line shot off someone's drive. I don't think it's right to argue she got in the way even if you're only partically serious since she was in a parking lot.

hose
08-09-2004, 01:51 PM
Shouldn't this go in the Knue's sports section?

It was a hole in one.

Tekijawa
08-09-2004, 03:28 PM
If anyone knows her could you please have her PM me... That was my Lucky SOX WIN golf ball... Also I seemed to have missplace my sox lose Anvil, and the dreaded Bud Selig declaired a tie grenade launcher. I also have a Koch blew another save bulldozer that I used to drive around for sale if anyone is interested, I no longer need it. I can ship to Florida, but you'll pay the S+H!

Thanks,
Teki

copyhead
08-09-2004, 03:35 PM
Dude, that's sick. Frivolous law suit or not the woman was struck in the face by a golfball! People routinely get their heads cracked open when struck in the head by ball with a fly ball trajectory. I can't imagine someone begin hit in the face by a line shot off someone's drive. I don't think it's right to argue she got in the way even if you're only partically serious since she was in a parking lot.
well ok, but why in the world would she sue the Sox over this??

sue the guy if you absolutely HAVE to, but i honestly don't see where the Sox organisation is at fault here...

just another loser looking to get rich the easy way IMO...

DoggPhood
08-09-2004, 03:38 PM
When I was leaving the parking lot after Saturday night's game, some guy wearing a Sox Towel, as a cape, ran by my car and slapped his hands pretty hard on the windshield. He left two giant handprints that I've been too lazy to wash off. Jerk.

copyhead
08-09-2004, 03:46 PM
sorry :(:

owensmouth
08-09-2004, 04:04 PM
well ok, but why in the world would she sue the Sox over this??

sue the guy if you absolutely HAVE to, but i honestly don't see where the Sox organisation is at fault here...

just another loser looking to get rich the easy way IMO...
Why sue the Sox? Well, first because they have the deep pockets. That is, the White Sox have more money than the moron who hit the golf ball.

By implication, the Sox sold the beverages that the moron downed before he hit the golf ball, therefore making the White Sox partially responsible.

It occurred on White Sox property. And the moron was hitting a golf ball, something that the White Sox should not have allowed to occur on their property.

If you own a home, you have homeowner's insurance to protect you if someone slips on your porch steps and breaks his leg, even if he was there without your permission.

I certainly hope that the police caught and prosecuted the idiot that felt he just had to hit those golf balls.

steff
08-09-2004, 04:15 PM
Why sue the Sox? Well, first because they have the deep pockets. That is, the White Sox have more money than the moron who hit the golf ball.

By implication, the Sox sold the beverages that the moron downed before he hit the golf ball, therefore making the White Sox partially responsible.

It occurred on White Sox property. And the moron was hitting a golf ball, something that the White Sox should not have allowed to occur on their property.

If you own a home, you have homeowner's insurance to protect you if someone slips on your porch steps and breaks his leg, even if he was there without your permission.

I certainly hope that the police caught and prosecuted the idiot that felt he just had to hit those golf balls.
I agree with this. There's liability. Now, if this happened on a golf course.. where there's a logical reason to be watching out for flying golf balls... then I would not. It's a shame, but the woman has a case, IMO.

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 04:25 PM
I agree with this. There's liability. Now, if this happened on a golf course.. where there's a logical reason to be watching out for flying golf balls... then I would not. It's a shame, but the woman has a case, IMO.
I think that she only has a case against the Sox if they can prove the offender was over-served in the game. If not, we all know that the Sox have security in place, but that security can't be in all places at all times. It would be on the plaintiff to prove that the Sox were negligent w/ regard to security somehow.

steff
08-09-2004, 04:27 PM
I think that she only has a case against the Sox if they can prove the offender was over-served in the game. If not, we all know that the Sox have security in place, but that security can't be in all places at all times. It would be on the plaintiff to prove that the Sox were negligent w/ regard to security somehow.
Why only if he was drunk...?? I was just at the cell and I don't recall seeing driving ranges there.. :tongue:

I know you don't agree with me kilroy, and that's ok, but I do think that this woman came to a baseball game accepting that she might be hit with a baseball.. not a golf ball.

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 04:57 PM
Why only if he was drunk...?? I was just at the cell and I don't recall seeing driving ranges there.. :tongue:

I know you don't agree with me kilroy, and that's ok, but I do think that this woman came to a baseball game accepting that she might be hit with a baseball.. not a golf ball.
By the same token, the White Sox expect that when you come to the game, you won't pull out your driver in the parking lot and and shoot a few Titelists into the rail yard. Do they need to have a sign?

That aside, in order for the plaintiff to have a chance at assigning liability to the Sox, she'll have to prove that drunken man got drunk on beer/alcohol served to him by the Sox, which then would have liability similar to when someone gets drunk in a bar, then drives, and kills someone.

Or, she'd have to show that the Sox were negligent in their security, and that negligence led to her being injured.

If they can't show one of those two things, then they can't hold the Sox responsible. That's just my opinion. It could be wrong.

If you ask me, being drunk doesn't lead to pulling out a driver and hitting golf balls in the parking lot in the same way it leads to impaired driving. Every person would be impaired in driving, but how many would hit golf balls in a parking lot? 1 in 10,000?

steff
08-09-2004, 04:59 PM
By the same token, the White Sox expect that when you come to the game, you won't pull out your driver in the parking lot and and shoot a few Titelists into the rail yard. Do they need to have a sign?

That aside, in order for the plaintiff to have a chance at assigning liability to the Sox, she'll have to prove that drunken man got drunk on beer/alcohol served to him by the Sox, which then would have liability similar to when someone gets drunk in a bar, then drives, and kills someone.

Or, she'd have to show that the Sox were negligent in their security, and that negligence led to her being injured.

If they can't show one of those two things, then they can't hold the Sox responsible. That's just my opinion. It could be wrong.

If you ask me, being drunk doesn't lead to pulling out a driver and hitting golf balls in the parking lot in the same way it leads to impaired driving. Every person would be impaired in driving, but how many would hit golf balls in a parking lot? 1 in 10,000?

I agree with this also.. so I guess I'm not a good person to serve on this jury.. :D:

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 05:05 PM
I agree with this also.. so I guess I'm not a good person to serve on this jury.. :D:
Well, if you ask me, they filed this suit looking for a settlement. The lawyer gets paid as long as money is collected, right?

steff
08-09-2004, 05:12 PM
Well, if you ask me, they filed this suit looking for a settlement. The lawyer gets paid as long as money is collected, right?
And I'm )kinda) back on her side again...

Did you see her face..? :o: I hate to say it, but she is scarred for life and for that I feel incredibly sorry for her. Should the Sox get screwed.. no. Will they.. probably. Regardless, they should put signs up in the lots that the Sox are not responsible for personal damages (on the parking coupons it states they are not liable for damage to cars).

In any event.. it's a terrible accident and I feel extremely sorry for her.

Baby Fisk
08-09-2004, 05:21 PM
Why only if he was drunk...?? I was just at the cell and I don't recall seeing driving ranges there.. :tongue:
:reinsy
"Well, I think you'll just love Phase Seven of the spectacular renovations at Titleist Park at US Cellular Field! Driving Range! Mini Putt! Chicago Golf Hall of Fame! And by the way, we won't be able to re-sign anybody except my new caddy Buster, so say your goodbyes while you can."

TornLabrum
08-09-2004, 11:41 PM
I heard one report today that the reason the Sox were named in the suit is the lack of security which allowed an idiot to be hitting golf balls on a parking lot.

Kilroy
08-09-2004, 11:55 PM
And I'm )kinda) back on her side again...

Did you see her face..? :o: I hate to say it, but she is scarred for life and for that I feel incredibly sorry for her. Should the Sox get screwed.. no. Will they.. probably. Regardless, they should put signs up in the lots that the Sox are not responsible for personal damages (on the parking coupons it states they are not liable for damage to cars).

In any event.. it's a terrible accident and I feel extremely sorry for her.
No, I haven't seen her. Where'd you find a picture?

Even still, scarred for life doesn't mean the Sox are responsible. But, the likelihood of collecting damages from drunken-dumb-ass-with-a-driver is far less than collecting from the Sox.

thepaulbowski
08-10-2004, 07:18 AM
And I'm )kinda) back on her side again...

Did you see her face..? :o: I hate to say it, but she is scarred for life and for that I feel incredibly sorry for her. Should the Sox get screwed.. no. Will they.. probably. Regardless, they should put signs up in the lots that the Sox are not responsible for personal damages (on the parking coupons it states they are not liable for damage to cars).

In any event.. it's a terrible accident and I feel extremely sorry for her.
Those signs and/or statements are as useless as the permission slips you used to get signed for school. If anybody produce evidence of negligence then they don't amount to a hill of beans. This will probably never see the courtroom, and her lawyer knows that.