From The Why We Need Fewer Lawyers File

[Scott D]

aka....the kind of person who should never leave the house.


Fan suing Mets in wake of back injury
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 3:30 AM

NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York Mets fan has filed suit, contending a drunken, 300-pound man fell on her during the home opener at Shea Stadium and broke her back.

Ellen Massey, a 58-year-old Manhattan lawyer, sued the team, the beer concession, the union that represents the security guards at the ballpark and "John Doe," the unidentified man who toppled on her.

Massey had surgery for spinal injuries and was hospitalized for about two weeks, said her attorney, Stephen Kaufman. Doctors put rods and screws in her back and will have to operate on her again, he said.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, seeks unspecified money damages.

"We believe the claim has no merit," the Mets said in a statement.

Massey said that on April 9 she was in the second row of the right-field upper deck near a "visibly intoxicated" man who was "acting in a rowdy, boisterous and dangerous manner for a long period of time."

The man, who has not been found or identified, later "fell upon plaintiff causing her to sustain severe personal injuries," court papers said.

"He got up and left," apparently uninjured, Kaufman said. "We have information that one of the security people might have spoken to him and let him leave."

Two emergency medical technicians sitting directly in front of Massey gave her first aid and comforted her until an ambulance arrived, Kaufman said.

The incident occurred between the sixth and seventh innings.

[dolemitesooner]

****ing they should have never should that fat guy the beer.
Sue them bitches **** the mets



Keep rockin

[yermom]

they shouldn't have let the guy go...

i mean, if he was there to sue, he should be paying for his drunken shenanigans and not the Mets people

[frankensooner]

Okay, it is foreseeable that you might get beaned by a foul ball. Having a great big giant person fall on you and break your back because the beer vendors are selling to an obviously drunk, morbidly obese man, looks like good clear case of dram shop liability to me.

[Xstnlsooner]

GOTTA LOVE THEM SHEISTER-LAWYER TYPES!

[Scott D]

eh I get the impression that at the time he left, nobody knew how injured this lady was.

[OSUAggie]

Lawyers that don't represent themselves are pathetic.

[jeremy885]

With a broken back, I doubt that she looked or acted ok. Security should have held the guy until the situation was resolved, or at least gotten his personal information (name, address, DL #).

[Scott D]

but how negatively would it affect her case if the guy turns out to be only 280 lbs ;)

[dolemitesooner]

Lawyers that don't represent themselves are pathetic.
So are you saying Daredevil is pathetic , becuase matt murdock did not represent himslef when he went to prison he recently....because if so I will beat your *** son.:cool:

[Scott D]

Daredevil is a pathetic sellout...bitch.

[frankensooner]

Aggies who don't farm and slaughter their own hogs are pathetic.

[OU4LIFE]

Okay, it is foreseeable that you might get beaned by a foul ball. Having a great big giant person fall on you and break your back because the beer vendors are selling to an obviously drunk, morbidly obese man, looks like good clear case of dram shop liability to me.

must we always ASSUME that 300 lbs. denotes 'morbidly obese'??

damn. You mini-humans can eat me.

[frankensooner]

Nah, I'm on a low-fat diet! ;)

[OU4LIFE]

ok then, you can lick me for the flavor.

[frankensooner]

not until you get a full body waxing.

[OU4LIFE]

well that's sorta what the licking was for.....

[frankensooner]

Hey that reminds me, why the Roman smiling with hair in his teeth?






Cause he was a Gladiator....



don't forget to tip your waitresses ;)

[Dio]

Shecky Frankensooner, ladies and gentlemen...

[Okla-homey]

Massey said that on April 9 she was in the second row of the right-field upper deck near a "visibly intoxicated" man who was "acting in a rowdy, boisterous and dangerous manner for a long period of time."


Ma'am, I only have a few questions.

Is that "general admission" seating up there in the right-field upper deck? Is that a yes? Would that mean you had the freedom to take a seat farther away from him if you chose to do so?

How many innings were you seated very near this "visibly intoxicated" man?

Did you ask any of the ushers or security personnel to be reseated farther away from this person you describe as "rowdy, boisterous and dangerous?" Is that a no? Please tell the court why not.

Please tell the court why you felt at the time the man was "dangerous."

Do you generally consider large people who get excited to be dangerous?

What did you do, if anything, to bring a person you are describing as dangerous to the attention of stadium security officials? Nothing? Why not?

Please tell the court about any other fans attempts to deal with the man you say fell on you.

So, to recap, is it fair to say you were confronted with with a big scary man whom you didn't consider to be a sufficient threat to warrant your moving or even pointing him out to security?

Is it possible he simply tripped and fell on you, you know, the kind of thing that can happen when fans get excited during a game?

[Hatfield]

Daredevil is a pathetic sellout...bitch.

amazing how incorrect that statement is.

[TexasLidig8r]

Ma'am, I only have a few questions.

Is that "general admission" seating up there in the right-field upper deck? Is that a yes? Would that mean you had the freedom to take a seat farther away from him if you chose to do so? Objection your Honor. Defendant was sued under 37 O.S. Section 347. As the Court is aware, this is a strict liability statute and Plaintiff need only show that Defendant violated this statute for liability to apply. Defendant is improperly attemting to interject a common law defense, to wit, contributory negligence, to a statutory violation. As such, Defendant's line of questioning is irrelevant and immaterial and does not go to Defendant's violation of Oklahoma statutory law.

How many innings were you seated very near this "visibly intoxicated" man? Same objection your Honor.

Did you ask any of the ushers or security personnel to be reseated farther away from this person you describe as "rowdy, boisterous and dangerous?" Is that a no? Please tell the court why not. Same objection your Honor.

Please tell the court why you felt at the time the man was "dangerous." Same objection your Honor. Further, under Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of certain facts. Plaintiff submits that a grossly obese man who had been over-served to the point of being loud, profane and incapable of even the most rudimentary functions, i.e., standing still, as a matter of law, constitutes a danger to not only himself and his liver, but society in general.

Do you generally consider large people who get excited to be dangerous? Objection, improper foundation. Other testimony has established his abusive nature and that he was drunk as a result of Defendant's gross violation of Oklahoma's statutory law. Move to strike.

What did you do, if anything, to bring a person you are describing as dangerous to the attention of stadium security officials? Nothing? Why not? Objection, relevance for the reasons previously cited to the Court.

Please tell the court about any other fans attempts to deal with the man you say fell on you. Objection, relevance. Defendant is improperly attempting to assert common law defenses where not approrpriate and in violation of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, previously sustained by this Court.

So, to recap, is it fair to say you were confronted with with a big scary man whom you didn't consider to be a sufficient threat to warrant your moving or even pointing him out to security? Same objection and move to strike your Honor.

Is it possible he simply tripped and fell on you, you know, the kind of thing that can happen when fans get excited during a game? Objection, calls for improper speculation.

Plaintiff moves for a directed verdict on the issue of violation of the dram shop statute your Honor. In addition, in not detaining the offending, quivering tub of goo at the time of the horrendous incident, Defendant was in essence, refusing to preserve tangible evidence, to wit: the offending man and more specifically, his blood alcohol content. Because of the nature of the incident and the grievous injuries caused, Defendant knew, or had a reasonable expectation that litigation would ensue. As such, Defendant is guilty of spoliation of evidence and the Court can and should construe the evidence in a manner adverse to Defendant.

[Scott D]

amazing how incorrect that statement is.

no, I'm quite sure that doleo is a bitch, and the rest was said to get him upset. So the entire statement is completely correct within the actual context of the intent.

[Okla-homey]

Your honor, first, this is New York, not Oklahoma.

Regarding relevance, we have well-settled law that fans who attend professional baseball games assume a certain degree of risk against which ballparks and owners may not be held liable. It's also well-settled that among those assumed risks are getting beaned by a pop fly to the bleachers and having an excited fan trip and fall on you.

We are attempting to establish that plaintiff was not exposed to an unreasonable degree of risk by virtue of her proximity to an admittedly large, but enthusiastic fan who so loved his Mets and was so happy to be there on opening day that he may have gotten a little carried away. Indeed, we haven't a scintiilla of evidence the fan in question was drunk or disorderly other than plaintiff's unsubstantiated testimony.

Further your honor, it is preposterous for her now to claim she was exposed to an unreasonable degree of risk, if she did nothing to mitigate it, as any rational person who truly felt threatened would have under the circumstances.

[Scott D]

Plaintiff moves for a directed verdict on the issue of violation of the dram shop statute your Honor. In addition, in not detaining the offending, quivering tub of goo at the time of the horrendous incident, Defendant was in essence, refusing to preserve tangible evidence, to wit: the offending man and more specifically, his blood alcohol content. Because of the nature of the incident and the grievous injuries caused, Defendant knew, or had a reasonable expectation that litigation would ensue. As such, Defendant is guilty of spoliation of evidence and the Court can and should construe the evidence in a manner adverse to Defendant.

as the judge I'm throwing this one out, because one does not need to be obese, or drunken to be capable of being loud and or profane in the great state of New York in the borough of Queens, in the township/city of Flushing Meadow. Furthermore, as a 58 year old alleged attorney, quit being a cheap bitch and get some box seats in the lower deck, or schmooze with the partners of the firm which you are clearly but a mere file clerk for to get access to their box.

court adjourned.

[TexasLidig8r]

Your honor, first, this is New York, not Oklahoma.

Regarding relevance, we have well-settled law that fans who attend professional baseball games assume a certain degree of risk against which ballparks and owners may not be held liable. It's also well-settled that among those assumed risks are getting beaned by a pop fly to the bleachers and having an excited fan trip and fall on you.

We are attempting to establish that plaintiff was not exposed to an unreasonable degree of risk by virtue of her proximity to an admittedly large, but enthusiastic fan who so loved his Mets and was so happy to be there on opening day that he may have gotten a little carried away. Indeed, we haven't a scintiilla of evidence the fan in question was drunk or disorderly other than plaintiff's unsubstantiated testimony.

Further your honor, it is preposterous for her now to claim she was exposed to an unreasonable degree of risk, if she did nothing to mitigate it, as any rational person who truly felt threatened would have under the circumstances.

ah.. as the Court is aware, assumption of risk and/or contributory negligence and mitigation of damages only apply to common law causes of action asserted here in the great state of New York. Plaintiff has asserted no such causes of action and in fact, has only alleged statutory violations against said beloved Mets. Obviously, your Honor, being a well known Yankee fan, may also take judicial notice that the Mets' employees' gross violation of statutory law is exceeded only by their gross incompetence on the field of play in the Great American Past time.

Our beloved plaintiff can be as oblivious as the proverbial dumbest stump in the forest. Nonetheless, such oblivion is simply irrelevant since New York dram shop liability is determined by statute, which as the Court is aware, is a "per se" standard. If there is a violation, then damages and their foreseeability are the only issues.

If Defendant wishes to stipulate to liability (which considering they let crucial, tangible evidence spoilate, may very well be appropriate), we can then move on to the issue of damages.

[Okla-homey]

ah.. as the Court is aware, assumption of risk and/or contributory negligence and mitigation of damages only apply to common law causes of action asserted here in the great state of New York. Plaintiff has asserted no such causes of action and in fact, has only alleged statutory violations against said beloved Mets. Obviously, your Honor, being a well known Yankee fan, may also take judicial notice that the Mets' employees' gross violation of statutory law is exceeded only by their gross incompetence on the field of play in the Great American Past time.

Our beloved plaintiff can be as oblivious as the proverbial dumbest stump in the forest. Nonetheless, such oblivion is simply irrelevant since New York dram shop liability is determined by statute, which as the Court is aware, is a "per se" standard. If there is a violation, then damages and their foreseeability are the only issues.

If Defendant wishes to stipulate to liability (which considering they let crucial, tangible evidence spoilate, may very well be appropriate), we can then move on to the issue of damages.

Your honor, here in the Empire State and under the statute, we need a drunk subject before dram shop liability can be imputed against my client. As you've heard, all we have are unsubstantiated allegations by a plaintiff we believe is merely the victim of an unfortunate accident involving an enthusiastic fan.

We need not remind you your honor that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving there is a drunk involved and she clearly has not met that burden. Accordingly, we move for a dismissal and urge sanctions against the plaintiff who, as an officer of the court and a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction, should know better than trying to turn an innocent ballpark into a an ATM.

[TexasLidig8r]

Your honor, here in the Empire State and under the statute, we need a drunk subject before dram shop liability can be imputed against my client. As you've heard, all we have are unsubstantiated allegations by a plaintiff we believe is merely the victim of an unfortunate accident involving an enthusiastic fan.

We need not remind you your honor that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving there is a drunk involved and she clearly has not met that burden. Accordingly, we move for a dismissal and urge sanctions against the plaintiff who, as an officer of the court and a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction, should know better than trying to turn an innocent ballpark into a an ATM.

Your Honor, as we were discussing at the club just yesterday, I would never turn a ballpark, even one as trite and symbolic of all that is wrong with baseball, as Shea Stadium, into an acronym for one of the most backward, bucolic universities in the fly over region of these Great United States.

As the Court is aware, other persons have spoken of the obvious inebriated state of the John Doe defendant. It was only through the acts of negligence perpetrated by the other defendants, that said John Doe defendant was allowed to leave the scene of this hi-aynous incident. Your Plaintiff was grievously injured and defendants knew that at the time. Yet, they allowed the only piece of tangible evidence to be removed from the premises. There is a legion of caselaw holding that when a party who is in possession of tangible evidence allows said evidence to disappear, then the Court is entitled to infer that said evidence would be detrimental to said party's case. That is the very essence of spoliation. To call defense argument's disingenuous would be charitable.

The Court has read affidavits from other fans regarding the offensive conduct of the Doe Defendant.. the smell of alcohol, the stagger in his gait, the spilling of beer, the profanity and the manner in which the incident occurred. Combined with the adverse inference against Defendant, there is more than a scintilla of evidence present to go to the jury on these factual issues.

This was no accident your Honor. An accident implies an absence of fault. The case at bar defines the very reason why dram shops laws are now enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Had Defendant NOT violated the statute of our great state, our Plaintiff would not have been tragically and permanently injured.

[Okla-homey]

Your Honor, Plaintiff is now making stuff up. Plaintiff seems to be attempting to apply some sort of twisted and deviant form of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine by alleging that she was somehow injured in my client's ballpark, and since beer is sold there by my client, that the inescapible conclusion is that my client is at fault under this constitutionally specious dram shop statute.

Such an inference is completely beyond the pale and even under the broadest reading of the statute, unless plaintiff can produce a drunken tortfeasor, she's wasting the court's time. Your Honor, may it please the court, we ask Plaintiff to call the mysterious "Mr Doe" or let my client get back to the business of baseball and the employment of thousands of our fellow New Yorkers who bring wholesome family fun to millions.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Order in the Gawd Damn court!**gavel breaks and hits the court reporter in the head**

[TexasLidig8r]

Your Honor, Plaintiff is now making stuff up. Plaintiff seems to be attempting to apply some sort of twisted, deviant form of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine by alleging that she was somehow injured in my client's ballpark, and since beer is sold there by my client, that the inescapible conclusion is that my client is at fault under this constitutionally specious dram shop statute.

Such an inference is completely beyond the pale and even under the broadest reading of the statute, unless plaintiff can produce a drunken tortfeasor, she's wasting the court's time.

SHOCKED Your Honor.. I am shocked and appalled that fine counsel for the insurance company for that pitiful excuse for a baseball team, the New York Mets.. err excuse me your Honor, I did not mean to interject insurance in this matter....

Your Honor, counsel for Defendant just admitted that beer is sold at Shea.. with the affidavits from the witnesses, that constitutes sufficient evidence to present to our fellow Yankee fans who will be sitting on the jury.. err.. I meant, objective, jury of our peers.

I am further shocked and disappointed that counsel for Defendant's insurance company would even consider challenging the constitutionality of a statute which has undoubtedly saved many many lives through its fair and uniform enforcement.

[Okla-homey]

SHOCKED Your Honor.. I am shocked and appalled that fine counsel for the insurance company for that pitiful excuse for a baseball team, the New York Mets.. err excuse me your Honor, I did not mean to interject insurance in this matter....

Your Honor, counsel for Defendant just admitted that beer is sold at Shea.. with the affidavits from the witnesses, that constitutes sufficient evidence to present to our fellow Yankee fans who will be sitting on the jury.. err.. I meant, objective, jury of our peers.

I am further shocked and disappointed that counsel for Defendant's insurance company would even consider challenging the constitutionality of a statute which has undoubtedly saved many many lives through its fair and uniform enforcement.

Your Honor, you and I both know that affadavits can be produced which purport to prove Elvis is alive and living in Schenectady. Without the ability to cross-examine witnesses in this matter, especially, as to the alleged intoxication of the mysterious "Mr Doe," we return to the bad old days when artfully drafted writs too often prevailed to work great injustices against innocent defendants.

I am reminded of the words of one of the greatest Americans to ever grace a bench, Justice Hand who wrote, cross examination is the greatest engine of truth yet devised by the mind of man. And Your Honor, we humbly and respectfully submit, he wasn't named "Learned" for nothing.

[TexasLidig8r]

Your Honor, you and I both know that affadavits can be produced which purport to prove Elvis is alive and living in Schenectady. Without the ability to cross-examine witnesses in this matter, especially, as to the alleged intoxication of the mysterious "Mr Doe," we return to the bad old days when artfully drafted writs too often prevailed to work great injustices against innocent defendants.

I am reminded of the words of one of the greatest Americans to ever grace a bench, Justice Hand who wrote, cross examination is the greatest engine of truth yet devised by the mind of man. And Your Honor, we humbly and respectfully submit, he wasn't named "Learned" for nothing.

Your Honor, Plaintiff will certainly have numerous witnesses (both free and bought and paid for) who will testify to not only the Doe defendant's gross intoxication but the Met's employees violating one of the more respected statutes on the books today.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Trial by juries in all cases are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once opined, " A jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts."

Plaintiff is entitled to her day in Court.. let justice and truth prevail. :D

[StoopTroup]

How do we know that the lady didn't pay that guy to fall on her?

[Okla-homey]

Your Honor, Plaintiff will certainly have numerous witnesses (both free and bought and paid for) who will testify to not only the Doe defendant's gross intoxication but the Met's employees violating one of the more respected statutes on the books today.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Trial by juries in all cases are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once opined, " A jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts."

Plaintiff is entitled to her day in Court.. let justice and truth prevail. :D

Your Honor, we will trust in the clear-eyed judgment of the jury and its ability to see through this charade and return a verdict for the defendant. They well know, it is precisely this sort of frivilous lawsuit which is making everything they buy or do cost more. I have heretofore resisted the impulse to mention this, but since my esteemed opposite has opened the door, we trust the jury will send this plaintiff to the waiting "good hands people" of her law firm partners benefit package...did I mention she was a wealthy lawyer?...which will surely make her whole.

Your honor, we rest.

[Suerreal]

From the OP:

The incident occurred between the sixth and seventh innings.

What kind of shoddy reporter omits important details such as:
- Who were the Mets playing?
- What was the score at the time?
- Did the Mets win?

Sheesh. They don't teach these kids nuthin'.

[Soonerus]

I agree we need fewer lawyers about 5 per state, me and 4 others in Oklahoma would be great....

[SleestakSooner]

and they wonder why we can't stand the legal types...



The incident occurred between the sixth and seventh innings.


Would that be during the 7th inning squish?

If you can't show proof the guy was drunk, how can you sue the park for serving him too much beer? The person who got hurt looks to be SOL on this one. Hopefully she saved a lot of those pennies her court house shenanigans garnered her over the years.

[MamaMia]

Don't y'all just love the way attorneys say things they aren't suppose to say and then they either fake an apology to the court, or they get objected to and its sustained, as if the jury is all of the sudden suppose to pretend they didn't hear it? Thats impossible. Its like telling someone not to picture a blue horse in their mind. Attorneys cheat, and they are so sneaky. :P

As a juror I would think that the person who should have to pay is Mr.Chubs, AKA John Doe. This woman didn't need an attorney right away. She needed a private investigator to first find Mr.Chubs, and then to do an asset search on him. If he didn't agree to settle out of court, then you get yourself an attorney.

[OU4LIFE]

I had no idea that I was 'grossly' and 'morbidly' obese.

I'm learning SO much from this thread.