PDA

View Full Version : A couple suing The Bengals Organization, because of Drunk Fans behavior


Deserei90
12-28-2010, 05:06 PM
CINCINNATI (AP) A woman says two increasingly intoxicated fans at a Cincinnati Bengals game finally fell on her, breaking her nose, finger and causing other injuries.

The woman and her husband are suing the Bengals, the team's beer vendor and the county-owned football stadium for alleged negligence for continuing to serve alcohol to the fans.

Rebecca Dunn and husband Curtis Dunn of Owensboro, Ky., say the fans, identified as John Doe and John Doe II, broke and gashed her nose, broke her finger and caused bruises and sprains.

The Bengals declined comment Tuesday on the lawsuit filed late last month in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and stemming from a 2009 NFL game with the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for past and future pain and medical treatment.
http://burgh.us/h4
Now, The Bengals got to deal with more frustrations? As Steeler Fans, Are we suppose to feel sorry for The Bengals Organization?

Fire Arians
12-28-2010, 05:22 PM
they can't stop serving alcohol during games, that would suck.

it's the wussy bungholes fan that can't hold his drink. must be a city full of douchebags

TRH
12-28-2010, 09:12 PM
everybody wants to sue somebody nowadays.....blame the Bengals for it, not the particular fan. Whats this world coming to...

BigRick
12-28-2010, 10:19 PM
everybody wants to sue somebody nowadays.....blame the Bengals for it, not the particular fan. Whats this world coming to...

That's the problem with our justice system today. Instead of telling these people to sue the assholes that caused the problem they got a shister lawyer to go after somebody who might have more money. :banging:

SteelersinCA
12-28-2010, 10:39 PM
Actually, there are liability laws on the books in all 50 states that you are responsible for the people you serve alcohol to. Legally, it's not that big of a stretch. It's quite similar to getting cut off at a bar.

BigRick
12-28-2010, 10:54 PM
Actually, there are liability laws on the books in all 50 states that you are responsible for the people you serve alcohol to. Legally, it's not that big of a stretch. It's quite similar to getting cut off at a bar.

That's true but did you stop to think that maybe they snuck in some hard liquor or maybe they were cutoff and somebody else kept buying drinks for them? The point is even if these people were stone sober the lawyers would advise them to go after the Bengals because they have potentiallt deeper pockets. :tt03:

mesaSteeler
12-29-2010, 06:26 AM
If I were a season ticket holder I'd sue the Bungles for fraud and false advertisement. Whatever it is they might be they are not an NFL football team.

Atlanta Dan
12-29-2010, 07:58 AM
You buy the ticket you take the ride

SteelersinCA
12-29-2010, 10:46 AM
That's true but did you stop to think that maybe they snuck in some hard liquor or maybe they were cutoff and somebody else kept buying drinks for them? The point is even if these people were stone sober the lawyers would advise them to go after the Bengals because they have potentiallt deeper pockets. :tt03:

So what you are saying is the Bengals security was so lax and they would allow people to sneak in contraband? Or that their alcohol control policies are that suspect? Thanks for making their case for them, geesh. :hatsoff:

BigRick
12-29-2010, 01:06 PM
So what you are saying is the Bengals security was so lax and they would allow people to sneak in contraband? Or that their alcohol control policies are that suspect? Thanks for making their case for them, geesh. :hatsoff:

You must live in a dream world if you think you can't beat security at a stadium or their alcohol sales polices.

BigRick
12-29-2010, 01:12 PM
You buy the ticket you take the ride

Well said. Stop blaming everyone else for some idiots problems. :tt03:

SteelersinCA
12-29-2010, 04:40 PM
You must live in a dream world if you think you can't beat security at a stadium or their alcohol sales polices.

Again, you further make their case. I'm not saying it can't be beat but if everyone knows it's inadequate, guess what, it's inadequate.

Surely you agree they are supposed to provide adequate security and sufficient alcohol control policies, that is in the ORC after all. If you say they are so substandard isn't that the same thing the couple suing the Bengals is saying?
:wink02:

Atlanta Dan
12-29-2010, 08:02 PM
The Bengals should respond as the Browns did in 1974 to a threatened lawsuit:chuckle:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/12/500x_complaint.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/11/2010/12/500x_response.jpg

http://deadspin.com/5716038/the-greatest-letter-ever-printed-on-nfl-team-letterhead?skyline=true&s=i

MasterOfPuppets
12-29-2010, 08:47 PM
well the law is , your property, your problem .it's bullshit , but it is what it is. its just a way to make sure you keep the insurance companies rich.

chew on this one for a moment....

Trespasser sues Amtrak, says company should have protected him

by David Breisch (RSS feed) on Sep 10th 2008 at 8:00AM

In this age of the ever-increasing frivolity of lawsuits, it's kind of refreshing to see people that are trying to push the bar even further. (That last bit was sarcastic, in case you couldn't tell.) 25-year-old Brian Hopkins is suing Amtrak, saying the company should have more measures in place to protect trespassers on its own private property.

Two years ago, Mr. Hopkins was out for a long night of drinking and socializing. At about 2 a.m., telling friends that he "wanted to get back to New York," he proceeded to head to Boston South Station to try and break into an idle Amtrak Acela high-speed trainset. When that didn't work, he climbed on top of the train, grabbing an overhead electric wire in the process, and... I probably don't need to tell you what happened next. He suffered third-degree burns over 85% of his body and ultimately had to have his left hand and leg amputated. According to the lawsuit, Amtrak "should have known that persons trespassed" in South Station and accordingly parked its trains somewhere else.
http://www.trainweb.org/trainpixsnet/images/KCTnoTrespassing.gif

BigRick
12-29-2010, 10:41 PM
Again, you further make their case. I'm not saying it can't be beat but if everyone knows it's inadequate, guess what, it's inadequate.

Surely you agree they are supposed to provide adequate security and sufficient alcohol control policies, that is in the ORC after all. If you say they are so substandard isn't that the same thing the couple suing the Bengals is saying?
:wink02:

Let's agree to diagree on this. Yes there should be adequate security, but the point I'm trying to get acorss is this. Short of giving every fan a breathalyzer test how are you going to know they aren't drunk when they enter the stadium? I think the drunks should be held responsible for their behavior, nobody else. :tt02:

SteelersinCA
12-29-2010, 11:52 PM
Let's agree to diagree on this. Yes there should be adequate security, but the point I'm trying to get acorss is this. Short of giving every fan a breathalyzer test how are you going to know they aren't drunk when they enter the stadium? I think the drunks should be held responsible for their behavior, nobody else. :tt02:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I think the suit is stupid, but it's not completely baseless. When someone is visibly intoxicated they usually are too drunk. No one advocates breathalizers at every entrance but when you serve alcohol you are taking on certain risks.

One of those risks are that fans will get drunk and do, well, drunk things. The bengals knew that and that's a risk they were willing to take. Certainly as this lawsuit plays out, if it plays out publicly, if some of the things you brought up, in fact happened, they would substantially mitigate the Bengals liability here.

It's essentially apportionment of fault. The Bengals may or may not have some, the drunk certainly has some. The bengals will not be held to a standard of checking every single person for levels of intoxication, but if they served a visibly drunk person continually, should they not share in some fault? Any bartender at a bar could/would. :thumbsup: