I have no idea exactly what the deal is with this complaint. It sounds like some kind of equitable indemnity claim seeking a determination of comparative fault.
The guys who beat Stow are clearly the bad guys and at fault here, but that does not mean McCourt is not liable. I assume the law on ballparks is like the law on maintaining security at a restaurant/bar, concert facility or club. The Dodgers were required to take reasonable steps to assure a safe premises. That typically involves proportionate security, adequate lighting, reasonable steps to keep non-fans off the premises, etc. McCourt's liability isn't a given. It depends on a number of issues such as past incidents that should have put the club on notice that more security was needed, evidence that the need for additional security was known to the club but disregarded for monetary reasons, stuff like that.
His lawyer is an asshole and I hope he gets his butt handed to him in this one.
For one, that's some of the worst reporting I've ever seen.
User account number (uid): 5796
Posted by Earl j. Slick on 2011-10-27 16:20:30
In Reply to: Earl, what's your take on this?
posted by starburst on 2011-10-27 14:35:29
Posted by Earl j. Slick on 2011-10-27 16:20:30
In Reply to: Earl, what's your take on this?
posted by starburst on 2011-10-27 14:35:29

You must be registered and logged in to post. Please select an option:
Login with existing account
Create a new account
-