$10 Million Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Patriots

[PatsDeb]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. For all of you poo-pooing this move (or worse), put yourselves in the shoes of that mother and kid. If the security guard overreacted and was not trained correctly, causing a heart attack (pre-existing condition or not), this family has a claim and they are right to look for a settlement. Nancy Kerrigan's brother is in jail for getting into a fight with their father which caused a fatal heart attack. The prosecutors in that case had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; the standard in a civil case is much lower.

 

[PatsDeb]

There's absolutely nothing in what you posted that would support a wrongful death claim. Like I have said a number of times, at most, it's warranted a complaint to the Guest Relations office.

You sir, would be wrong.

 

[DaBruinz]

Kimberly Chartier of Chicopee sues New England Patriots, NFL, in wake of husband's fatal heart attack in 2010 at Foxborough | masslive.com

A few problems with the lawsuit. The person filing it has absolutely NO IDEA what was said by her husband at the time because she wasn't there. No one knows if the husband reacted defensively and angrily to begin with.

Now, a few things that will derail this lawsuit.

1) Claim #48 regarding not knowing that credentials were needed to go onto the field. The ticket policy specifically mentions that the ticket doesn't allow you onto the field. It sounds to me that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of privileges his ticket allowed.

2) Claim #54 will be under scrutiny because neither plaintiff knows what was said. Nor can they know what Mr. Chartier's reaction was. All they have, potentially, is heresay.

3) Your claim that 92C give credence to the lawsuit is actually derailed by the fact that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of what privileges his ticket allowed as shown by Claim #48.

4) Claim 92D doesn't take into consideration that Mr. Chartier may have been the one instigating the discussion, not the security guard by talking at the guard from his seat.

5) Claim 94 is baseless opinion. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean that the Company, was negligent in any of it's practices.

This is typical ambulance chasing. You name anyone and everyone you possibly can in hopes that one of the settles. It's ridiculous and the woman should be ashamed of herself.

Now, that being said, Mr. Sherman probably could have done better. So could the officials. But, that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Chartier had a pre-existing health condition that lead to his heart attack. Not the confrontation with the guard. In fact, it could be said that Mr. Chartier is at fault for not keeping his cool despite the security guard's antics knowing about his own severe health issues.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. For all of you poo-pooing this move (or worse), put yourselves in the shoes of that mother and kid. If the security guard overreacted and was not trained correctly, causing a heart attack (pre-existing condition or not), this family has a claim and they are right to look for a settlement. Nancy Kerrigan's brother is in jail for getting into a fight with their father which caused a fatal heart attack. The prosecutors in that case had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; the standard in a civil case is much lower.

Prosecutors said Kerrigan caused his father's death while in a drunken rage on Jan. 24, 2010. They said he put his hands around 70-year-old Daniel Kerrigan's neck with such force that he broke cartilage in his larynx and triggered his heart failure.

Nancy Kerrigan?s brother, convicted in 2010 death of father, wants to go back to jail to serve rest of sentence  - NY Daily News

You do realize how much credibility you lose when you try to equate these two situations, right? One "fight" involved assault and battery, while the other "fight" involved an argument. Imagine if your post caused my blood pressure to rise because I am upset, and therefore I have a heart attack. Your post, after all, was not very accurate.

 

[belichick010405]

I think there are a few possibilities for anyone being at fault, but if they weren't mentioned in the lawsuit, they are probably non-existent:

1. If there is some kind of training for security guards which specifically states that you must diffuse these situations in "x" way to prevent possible heart attacks or stress escalations, then they could be in trouble. Likewise, if there is some kind of memo or information that was sent to the NFL, the Patriots, or the security company, which informs them of the "risky" practice of escalating arguments with fans, then they could be in trouble. However, I doubt there is any correlation between getting into an argument and having a heart attack that is specific to these particular event versus any other type of life situation.

2. If the deceased had said something to the security guard along the lines of "I have a condition, please leave me alone" or "I had a heart attack, please desist" then someone could be in trouble. The fact that he was obese would actually work in the plaintiff's favor, not the defense, but I don't think it's enough- the fact that the man was at a sporting event and apparently was animated himself would negate his supposedly identifiable high-risk obesity. It's not like the man was in a wheelchair and the security guard pushed him over.

Medical outcome, or injury, has to be reasonable foreseeable. I saw the definition that you posted on here, and maybe proximate causation is not the right definition in Massachusetts; many of these legal terms mean something else in other jurisdictions. However, the concept that something needs to be reasonably foreseeable exists in all jurisdictions of common law, and I'm sure it is called something else in MA. Otherwise, I could be negligent by leaving a gun in my front yard, and an unlikely hail storm comes, hail drops on the gun, discharging it and killing someone. I was negligent and the person died, but I would not be liable because that would not be foreseen by a reasonable person and was just really bad luck. I would be liable if there was a school across the street from me and a child picked up the gun and someone. Obviously a reasonable person would know not to leave a weapon out in the open when there are children that frequently walk by.

True - but you have to understand that this security guard was not being reasonable if he was not following SOP or protocol which in this case, he clearly wasn't.

Because he was not being reasonable in his actions, his ability to see any consequence resulting in a medical outcome has been mitigated and therefore, is not foreseeable.

You can bet that is going to be a primary argument in this case. BTW - in the claiming document, assertions that include a delineation of the standard operating procedures is not produced in the complaint. It is found through discovery along with any relevant medical histories.

 

[PatsDeb]

A few problems with the lawsuit. The person filing it has absolutely NO IDEA what was said by her husband at the time because she wasn't there. No one knows if the husband reacted defensively and angrily to begin with.

Now, a few things that will derail this lawsuit.

1) Claim #48 regarding not knowing that credentials were needed to go onto the field. The ticket policy specifically mentions that the ticket doesn't allow you onto the field. It sounds to me that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of privileges his ticket allowed.

2) Claim #54 will be under scrutiny because neither plaintiff knows what was said. Nor can they know what Mr. Chartier's reaction was. All they have, potentially, is heresay.

3) Your claim that 92C give credence to the lawsuit is actually derailed by the fact that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of what privileges his ticket allowed as shown by Claim #48.

4) Claim 92D doesn't take into consideration that Mr. Chartier may have been the one instigating the discussion, not the security guard by talking at the guard from his seat.

5) Claim 94 is baseless opinion. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean that the Company, was negligent in any of it's practices.

This is typical ambulance chasing. You name anyone and everyone you possibly can in hopes that one of the settles. It's ridiculous and the woman should be ashamed of herself.

Now, that being said, Mr. Sherman probably could have done better. So could the officials. But, that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Chartier had a pre-existing health condition that lead to his heart attack. Not the confrontation with the guard. In fact, it could be said that Mr. Chartier is at fault for not keeping his cool despite the security guard's antics knowing about his own severe health issues.

Good gosh man, the woman lost her husband and her 6 yr. old had to watch dad die. She should be ashamed of herself? She should have just filed a complaint with Guest Relations and let it go? Wow, there are some seriously unsympathetic people here on Patsfans.

 

[DaBruinz]

Proximate cause "is a cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, produces the death, and without which the death would not have occurred." Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 379 Mass. 810, 825 (1980),

They'll have to prove that the argument caused the heart attack and that without the argument he wouldn't have had one. Next to impossible. Particularly in the case of someone who would be considered morbidly obese (anyone 50lbs over their ideal weight).

For all we know, walking up the stairs could have caused the heart attack. Which it has done in some people.

 

[DaBruinz]

Kenny - that is the problem, the security guard, instead of doing his job, did two things wrong.

(1) Harassed and annoyed someone to the point that caused his death. (2) Failed to follow standard operating procedure to determine whether or not there was an ongoing security violation when the NFL officials brought that child onto the field.

And then he went above and beyond by going back to the father and continued his annoying and harassing behavior.

Except that you haven't proved that the argument was the DIRECT CAUSE of the heart attack.

 

[DaBruinz]

And how do you know that pray tell?

Because healthy people don't die from a simple argument. Because the video and pictures of the man who died showed him to be morbidly obese.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yea, ok Demos.

Tell that to Reggie Lewis, Hank Gathers or the hundreds of thousands of those who died without even knowing that they had a cardiac condition.

Reggie Lewis knew he had a heart condition. It was caused by his cocaine use.

Hank Gathers knew he had one also. it was diagnosed 3 months before he died.

 

[belichick010405]

A few problems with the lawsuit. The person filing it has absolutely NO IDEA what was said by her husband at the time because she wasn't there. No one knows if the husband reacted defensively and angrily to begin with.

Now, a few things that will derail this lawsuit.

1) Claim #48 regarding not knowing that credentials were needed to go onto the field. The ticket policy specifically mentions that the ticket doesn't allow you onto the field. It sounds to me that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of privileges his ticket allowed. I would like to read the verbatim ticket policy that you are citing.

2) Claim #54 will be under scrutiny because neither plaintiff knows what was said. Nor can they know what Mr. Chartier's reaction was. All they have, potentially, is heresay. It is called witnesses.

3) Your claim that 92C give credence to the lawsuit is actually derailed by the fact that Mr. Chartier was ignorant of what privileges his ticket allowed as shown by Claim #48. Ibid on wanting to read the verbatim ticket policy with some form of verifiable source of that language.

4) Claim 92D doesn't take into consideration that Mr. Chartier may have been the one instigating the discussion, not the security guard by talking at the guard from his seat. Ibid on witness.

5) Claim 94 is baseless opinion. Everyone can have a bad day. That doesn't mean that the Company, was negligent in any of it's practices. It all depends on SOP of the security company and who they are contracted with. Additionally - it will be further discovered what other forms of negligence between this 'employee' and this 'security company' have been alleged and founded in the past based on the contract that they are/were engaged in with the Patriots and/or any of the parties named in the complaint.

This is typical ambulance chasing. You name anyone and everyone you possibly can in hopes that one of the settles. It's ridiculous and the woman should be ashamed of herself.

Now, that being said, Mr. Sherman probably could have done better. So could the officials. But, that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Chartier had a pre-existing health condition that lead to his heart attack. You don't know that more than anyone else. For all you know, Mr. Chartier didn't know nor was informed by his doctor that he had a cardiac or heart condition. This too will be found through discovery.

Not the confrontation with the guard. In fact, it could be said that Mr. Chartier is at fault for not keeping his cool despite the security guard's antics knowing about his own severe health issues. Speculation at its best. This too will be found through discovery.

Bruinz - you just have a problem with anyone standing for their rights don't you? I have responded to each and every claim that you made in this post.

The only thing that you have said that is clear and true were the actions of the security guard based on one witness.

 

[PatsDeb]

Prosecutors said Kerrigan caused his father's death while in a drunken rage on Jan. 24, 2010. They said he put his hands around 70-year-old Daniel Kerrigan's neck with such force that he broke cartilage in his larynx and triggered his heart failure.

Nancy Kerrigan?s brother, convicted in 2010 death of father, wants to go back to jail to serve rest of sentence* - NY Daily News

You do realize how much credibility you lose when you try to equate these two situations, right? One "fight" involved assault and battery, while the other "fight" involved an argument. Imagine if your post caused my blood pressure to rise because I am upset, and therefore I have a heart attack. Your post, after all, was not very accurate.

I have lost no credibility and I am not comparing the two situations literally. Many people have said that there are no grounds for a wrongful death claim where someone suffered a heart attack and had a pre-existing condition, and I was trying to point out, perhaps inartfully, that just because someone suffers a heart attack doesn't mean there's no claim for wrongful death, and in fact there can be a criminal conviction (which requires a much higher burden of proof) for causing someone to die of a heart attack.

All you have to prove in a negligence case is there was a duty owed (by the Patriots and their security team) to the person injured (their season ticket holder and his son), the person who owed the duty breached it (the security guard who was acting like a jerk and did not follow his proper training, or had no proper training) and it was a proximate cause of damage to the injured person (heart attack and death for dad and perhaps infliction of emotional distress on son [don't know if they sued for that]). I don't know what MA's standard is on proximate cause. Sometimes one proximate cause (pre-existing heart condition) can offset or reduce the damages of another proximate cause (being treated wrongly and harshly resulting in a fatal cardiac event).

 

[belichick010405]

Good gosh man, the woman lost her husband and her 6 yr. old had to watch dad die. She should be ashamed of herself? She should have just filed a complaint with Guest Relations and let it go? Wow, there are some seriously unsympathetic people here on Patsfans.

Hey Deb - don't bother. Bruinz has an issue with those that stand up for their rights. This won't change.

To hell with the child and the loss that he has experienced in losing his father.

 

[SB39]

This is the sort of thing that makes security guards be forced to behave 100% "by the book" going forward. I can't help but think this ties into the other thread where a guy at an AZ Cardinals game got kicked out for having his son hold his beer. The security guards are not able to use their own discretion because, if they did use their own discretion and then something happened, then the Cardinals could be liable for millions of dollars.

Lawyers are the slime of humanity. They profit off the misery of others.

 

[DaBruinz]

Good gosh man, the woman lost her husband and her 6 yr. old had to watch dad die. She should be ashamed of herself? She should have just filed a complaint with Guest Relations and let it go? Wow, there are some seriously unsympathetic people here on Patsfans.

I am unsympathetic because she is blaming the Patriots, the NFL and the Security for her husband's poor health.

Based on his pictures, he would be considered very obese (more than 50 lbs over his ideal weight). He also exacerbated that obesity with drinking and smoking cigars.

It sucks that her son watched his father die like that. But the Patriots, NFL, and Security are not to blame.

 

[robbomango]

I don't think Robert Kraft owes these people 10 million dollars, I just don't. You can use all the fancy legal jargin you wish. He probably got fired, If so justice was served IMO.

If someone is going to drop dead from a heated argument then it was only a matter of time.

Sad situation....

 

[PatsDeb]

They'll have to prove that the argument caused the heart attack and that without the argument he wouldn't have had one. Next to impossible. Particularly in the case of someone who would be considered morbidly obese (anyone 50lbs over their ideal weight).

For all we know, walking up the stairs could have caused the heart attack. Which it has done in some people.

Not so. What if he's had the heart condition for 10 years? He was a season ticket holder and presumably has been to many games without incident. The only one he died at was the one where the security guard acted like a jerk.

This is my opinion only, although I am an attorney and many years ago did personal injury. I'm not trying to say the family will win. This one has settlement written all over it because it could go either way. It's not a cut-and-dried case for either side.

 

[chasa]

what took her 3 years to decide it was worth a lawsuit?

 

[belichick010405]

I am unsympathetic because she is blaming the Patriots, the NFL and the Security for her husband's poor health.

Based on his pictures, he would be considered morbidly obese (more than 50 lbs over his ideal weight). He also exacerbated that obesity with drinking and smoking cigars.

It sucks that her son watched his father die like that. But the Patriots, NFL, and Security are not to blame.

Well thank God that one's medical history and conditions are not based on pictures because if that was the case then Chris Christie would be in real trouble.

 

[belichick010405]

what took her 3 years to decide it was worth a lawsuit?

One reason is because you never know what is going on behind closed doors.