$10 Million Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Patriots

PatsDeb · Aug 21, 2013

Demosthenes said:
On what grounds does the estate have a case ? Seriously, are you trying to argue that arguing with a person is grounds for a wrongful death suit ?

Sure, under the right circumstances. You only have to allege and prove three things:

1. The Pats and/or their security co. had a duty to their customer
2. The Pats and/or their security guard breached their duty (this can include either not following training that has been given, or not giving proper training to the security guard)
3. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of damage to their customer.

The Pats' defenses will be: 1) the Pats or their security guard had no duty to their customer (pretty weak, the guy paid for season tickets and security guards are supposed to be there to protect paying customers, not antagonize them); they will also trot out the language on the back of the tickets, which is called an adhesion contract (i.e. the customer really doesn't agree to it - you can't get in without a ticket, so sometimes this does not work as a defense)

2) the Pats or the security guard did not breach any duty to their customer (also kind of weak - they are trained to get into a heated argument with someone? Someone there with a 6 yr. old? Someone who has told them the kid was invited onto the field by the NFL? Theoretically they are trained to deal with customers in a respectful way; to call a supervisor if they are having a problem or need to verify that someone has permission to be on the field, or to make an intelligent decision (such as, I'll stand here and keep a close watch, but there shouldn't be any problem with a 6 yr. old on the field for a few minutes) The security guard did none of those things, seemingly backed up by someone in authority who said he would be fired.

3) the argument with the security guard (i.e. his breach of duty) was not the proximate cause of this man's death. Even this one is weak, although the pre-existing heart condition comes into play here. If the guy had a heart condition for 10 years and went to 10 years worth of games without incident, though, then it is pretty easy to argue that the security guard's breach of duty (i.e. getting into a heated argument with the guy) was the, or at least the main, proximate cause of his heart attack and subsequent death.

However, the attorneys for the Plaintiff may find this thread useful. It seems a jury might not be very sympathetic to these claims and a quick settlement would be best.

PatsDeb · Aug 22, 2013

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
If he has had a heart condition for 10 years, and the Patriots or the parties involved SHOULD know about it, then you have proximate causation. Nothing in the suit states anything about this. The plaintiff will only win if they can prove that the Patriots were notified of this man's condition and were required to notify their security guard, and that the argument was the security guard's fault and not the deceased's fault, and that the argument actually led to the man's death. OR if the security guard's actions were so egregious and reprehensible that a reasonable person would believe a risk of death might occur. Of course, you might as well re-write the entire legal system if that last one occurs, and you'd better never give anyone a dirty look or raise your voice, lest you may be on the hook for a large sum of money.

This is a very cut-and-dried case unless there is information we are unaware of.

I can't agree. Obviously the Pats were not notified of the man's condition, but that isn't part of what the Plaintiff has to prove. A security guard who botches his job [which is to keep the paying fans safe] is different from the guy on the street giving a dirty look. The Patriots are generally aware that they admit thousands of people to every game and that many of those fans may have medical conditions or be drunk or what have you. That is why you train and have security staff. This guy botched it and reportedly was fired for the way he handled the situation. How can that be cut-and-dried? It's not cut-and-dried for either side.

Demosthenes · Aug 22, 2013

PatsDeb said:
Sure, under the right circumstances. You only have to allege and prove three things:

1. The Pats and/or their security co. had a duty to their customer
2. The Pats and/or their security guard breached their duty (this can include either not following training that has been given, or not giving proper training to the security guard)
3. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of damage to their customer.

The Pats' defenses will be: 1) the Pats or their security guard had no duty to their customer (pretty weak, the guy paid for season tickets and security guards are supposed to be there to protect paying customers, not antagonize them); they will also trot out the language on the back of the tickets, which is called an adhesion contract (i.e. the customer really doesn't agree to it - you can't get in without a ticket, so sometimes this does not work as a defense)

2) the Pats or the security guard did not breach any duty to their customer (also kind of weak - they are trained to get into a heated argument with someone? Someone there with a 6 yr. old? Someone who has told them the kid was invited onto the field by the NFL? Theoretically they are trained to deal with customers in a respectful way; to call a supervisor if they are having a problem or need to verify that someone has permission to be on the field, or to make an intelligent decision (such as, I'll stand here and keep a close watch, but there shouldn't be any problem with a 6 yr. old on the field for a few minutes) The security guard did none of those things, seemingly backed up by someone in authority who said he would be fired.

3) the argument with the security guard (i.e. his breach of duty) was not the proximate cause of this man's death. Even this one is weak, although the pre-existing heart condition comes into play here. If the guy had a heart condition for 10 years and went to 10 years worth of games without incident, though, then it is pretty easy to argue that the security guard's breach of duty (i.e. getting into a heated argument with the guy) was the, or at least the main, proximate cause of his heart attack and subsequent death.

However, the attorneys for the Plaintiff may find this thread useful. It seems a jury might not be very sympathetic to these claims and a quick settlement would be best.

Perhaps someone well versed in this will come in and clarify things, but I believe this is the Massachusetts law dealing with wrongful death.

Section 2. A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person, or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (3) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his negligence causes the death of a passenger, or (4) operates a common carrier of passengers and by his willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a passenger under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or (5) is responsible for a breach of warranty arising under Article 2 of chapter one hundred and six which results in injury to a person that causes death, shall be liable in damages in the amount of: (1) the fair monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled to receive the damages recovered, as provided in section one, including but not limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected net income, services, protection, care, assistance, society, companionship, comfort, guidance, counsel, and advice of the decedent to the persons entitled to the damages recovered; (2) the reasonable funeral and burial expenses of the decedent; (3) punitive damages in an amount of not less than five thousand dollars in such case as the decedent’s death was caused by the malicious, willful, wanton or reckless conduct of the defendant or by the gross negligence of the defendant; except that (1) the liability of an employer to a person in his employment shall not be governed by this section, (2) a person operating a railroad shall not be liable for negligence in causing the death of a person while walking or being upon such railroad contrary to law or to the reasonable rules and regulations of the carrier and (3) a person operating a street railway or electric railroad shall not be liable for negligence for causing the death of a person while walking or being upon that part of the street railway or electric railroad not within the limits of a highway. A person shall be liable for the negligence or the willful, wanton or reckless act of his agents or servants while engaged in his business to the same extent and subject to the same limits as he would be liable under this section for his own act. Damages under this section shall be recovered in an action of tort by the executor or administrator of the deceased. An action to recover damages under this section shall be commenced within three years from the date of death, or within three years from the date when the deceased’s executor or administrator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the factual basis for a cause of action, or within such time thereafter as is provided by section four, four B, nine or ten of chapter two hundred and sixty.

I believe the applicable part that deals with this would be:

Section 2. A person who (1) by his negligence causes the death of a person, or (2) by willful, wanton or reckless act causes the death of a person under such circumstances that the deceased could have recovered damages for personal injuries if his death had not resulted, or

(1) Arguing with the man wasn't "negligence". It might be rude. It might be bad form/manners. It might even be against company policy and procedures, but it wasn't negligence.

(2) Arguing with the man was willful, but, the second part of the passage isn't met as arguing isn't something that the man could have recovered damages for.

This would be the "egg shell skull" that rlcarr mentioned. If the Security guard had struck the man and caused a heart attack, that would be a different matter.

Again, what we have is two men arguing, a purely verbal altercation, and one of those men ended up having a heart attack. There's no "wrongful death" suit here.

fnordcircle · Aug 22, 2013

Nunchucks said:
Healthy people do not drop dead because somebody is mean to them.

PatsDeb · Aug 22, 2013

Demosthenes said:
Perhaps someone well versed in this will come in and clarify things, but I believe this is the Massachusetts law dealing with wrongful death.

I believe the applicable part that deals with this would be:

(1) Arguing with the man wasn't "negligence". It might be rude. It might be bad form/manners. It might even be against company policy and procedures, but it wasn't negligence.

(2) Arguing with the man was willful, but, the second part of the passage isn't met as arguing isn't something that the man could have recovered damages for.

This would be the "egg shell skull" that rlcarr mentioned. If the Security guard had struck the man and caused a heart attack, that would be a different matter.

Again, what we have is two men arguing, a purely verbal altercation, and one of those men ended up having a heart attack. There's no "wrongful death" suit here.

LOL, I am an attorney and thought I was well versed in this stuff. Arguing with someone when you have been trained to do something else as a security guard could definitely be negligence (that's that whole duty/breach/damage thing). I agree there was no willful or reckless disregard for human life. This is purely a negligence case.

Demosthenes · Aug 22, 2013

PatsDeb said:
LOL, I am an attorney and thought I was well versed in this stuff. Arguing with someone when you have been trained to do something else as a security guard could definitely be negligence (that's that whole duty/breach/damage thing). I agree there was no willful or reckless disregard for human life. This is purely a negligence case.

I saw where you said that you were an attorney. For all I know, you're into tax law or intellectual property.

I disagree that going against SOP and arguing with someone is negligence. What duty to the customer did he neglect ?

Reckedtrek · Aug 22, 2013

The argument killed him, but not the Bacon Double Cheeseburger addiction the guy apparently had. Looks like the girl at the Wendy's drive through was a regular thing... at least for burgers.

10 Million. Sounds like a good number... good grief.

PatsDeb · Aug 22, 2013

Demosthenes said:
I saw where you said that you were an attorney. For all I know, you're into tax law or intellectual property.

I disagree that going against SOP and arguing with someone is negligence. What duty to the customer did he neglect ?

Actually these days I'm into bankruptcy.

He arguably has a duty to act in accordance with his training to keep his customer safe (or if he had no training, then the fault lies with his supervisors). The fact that he was fired (if he was; I just read that somewhere, didn't verify) for the way he handled things is some evidence that he did not act according to his training. Believe me, the first thing that is pulled out and scrutinized in a case like this is the employee training manual.

Demosthenes · Aug 22, 2013

PatsDeb said:
Actually these days I'm into bankruptcy.

He arguably has a duty to act in accordance with his training to keep his customer safe (or if he had no training, then the fault lies with his supervisors). The fact that he was fired (if he was; I just read that somewhere, didn't verify) for the way he handled things is some evidence that he did not act according to his training. Believe me, the first thing that is pulled out and scrutinized in a case like this is the employee training manual.

The guard's "duty to act in accordance with his training" is his duty to the company, not his duty to the fan.

That he was fired could be a result of him not following procedures, but that still doesn't make him negligent or make this a wrongful death case.

Example. Say you came in for dinner back when I was a waiter. Predictably, you drove me nuts

I go against company policies and procedures by coming to your table and telling you that you are the worst customer that I have ever had in all my years as a waiter.

With that, I present you with your dinner bill and turn and walk away.

I'd most certainly be fired for such actions. I would definitely have violated company policies. But that's about it. You could complain to the manager and he might comp your meal or give you some gift certificates to make it up to you, but if you went to a lawyer and tried to sue, you wouldn't have any grounds.

Bad manners /= grounds for a lawsuit. Acting against company policies, by itself, is not grounds for a lawsuit either. There has to be something actionable there and in this case, there isn't.

Joker · Aug 22, 2013

Believe me, the first thing that is pulled out and scrutinized in a case like this is the employee training manual.

you talk about "bankruptcy" ,Deb...well...here's proof of MY moral bankruptcy....my eyes deceived me as I read your bolded sentence with a total, 100% hallucination of the last three words...this being a family board I will not elaborate but as a proven cretin for over five decades, my brain autoselects what follows "pulled out and scrutinized" like Pavlov's horny dog....

PatsDeb · Aug 22, 2013

Joker said:
Believe me, the first thing that is pulled out and scrutinized in a case like this is the employee training manual.

you talk about "bankruptcy" ,Deb...well...here's proof of MY moral bankruptcy....my eyes deceived me as I read your bolded sentence with a total, 100% hallucination of the last three words...this being a family board I will not elaborate but as a proven cretin for over five decades, my brain autoselects what follows "pulled out and scrutinized" like Pavlov's horny dog....

LOL, Joker, you crack me up. Have a good night...

Ice_Ice_Brady · Aug 22, 2013

PatsDeb said:
I can't agree. Obviously the Pats were not notified of the man's condition, but that isn't part of what the Plaintiff has to prove. A security guard who botches his job [which is to keep the paying fans safe] is different from the guy on the street giving a dirty look. The Patriots are generally aware that they admit thousands of people to every game and that many of those fans may have medical conditions or be drunk or what have you. That is why you train and have security staff. This guy botched it and reportedly was fired for the way he handled the situation. How can that be cut-and-dried? It's not cut-and-dried for either side.

It is cut-and-dried for the obvious reason that DEATH is not in the foreseeable consequences/risks of "botching" this situation. While you may be a good attorney, Deb, I really think you are failing to grasp that just because an employee does not follow company procedures, that does not make anyone liable for DEATH. Assuming (which is a huge assumption) that the security guard was negligent does not mean that the negligence makes him, the team, or the NFL liable for a person dying.

Clearly, the spectrum of foreseeable risks would involve an angry fan who at most might receive "damages" in the form of a refund. The foreseeable risks of arguing or swearing at fan? You are truly convinced that the man's DEATH should be in this spectrum? I am afraid that this is foolish and irrational. This man is a security guard, and the only situation he would be potentially liable for DEATH would if he were to botch a situation where he should have provided physical protection for a vulnerable fan but failed to follow proper procedures. This is not an ambulance driver or doctor here.

I am shocked that you still think there is a legitimate case.

Christiancat · Aug 22, 2013

Interesting case, I wonder how much media attention this case will get if any.

IcyPatriot · Aug 22, 2013

Christiancat said:
Interesting case, I wonder how much media attention this case will get if any.

Felger will be all over it with his buddy MazzChoad.

Silver Blue&Red · Aug 22, 2013

PatsDeb said:
Actually these days I'm into bankruptcy.

He arguably has a duty to act in accordance with his training to keep his customer safe (or if he had no training, then the fault lies with his supervisors). The fact that he was fired (if he was; I just read that somewhere, didn't verify) for the way he handled things is some evidence that he did not act according to his training. Believe me, the first thing that is pulled out and scrutinized in a case like this is the employee training manual.

Not to be argumentative, but doesn't he have an obligation to protect the other "customers" as well as the personnel and employees on the field?

Section103 · Aug 22, 2013

DaBruinz said:
I didn't make your point. I blew it up in your face because it was and still is non-sensical. I can and DO know he was OBESE. That's fact you can't deny. That you are still trying is absolutely laughable.

I agree that this particular argument on this thread is tiresome and pointless. He was obese. I can confirm that because I saw him that day. I think we all agree that we can't know for certain what his complete health history was, but given his known size and assumed habits, based on a picture his family provided which I presume they chose at it represented who he is, that he was not a fit and perfectly healthy individual.

However, I think this entire thread proves that none of us knows jack about the situation, either parties actions or any health history that may apply to the case. We have a complaint and newspaper articles that speculate based on shreds of information from witnesses. So we further speculate the what-ifs... but isn't that the point of forums like this? As much as we want to think we are knowledgeable because we watched or played some football or coached some high-school or junior college, it doesn't mean we know what we are talking about in regards to this team or any NFL team. But it's fun. So argue away!

Just a point of clarification on my previous post that seemed to fan the original flames of the 'morbidity debate'. My point was more that the account I was quoting was not accurate. He was not lying down outside dead and waiting for an ambulance because he was too massive to carry. He was put in an ambulance on the field and driven away.

Section103 · Aug 22, 2013

Just a little more speculation... we know the security guard and Chartier were arguing. Maybe the security guard could have handled the situation better, but was Chartier the one to escalate? Maybe he got mad and belligerent once the guard told him his son had to get off the field. Maybe the guard asked him to come off and Chartier argued, guard told him he had to get off the field, he argued some more, the guard also became agitated and argued back. Soon after tragedy happened.

Doesn't mean the guard acted appropriately once the situation escalated, but it doesn't mean he created the situation to begin with. I would guess that would be relevant, IF that scenario happened.

(I didn't notice an argument when I came down to my seats for that day, but I could have missed it or it happened just a few minutes before we walked down)

SeymourTrophies · Aug 22, 2013

This guy was watching our defense in 2010 and it was the security guard that did him in?

Seriously, of all the things that I would think would induce a heart attack at the Razor, a s--- talking security guard would be pretty low on the list. Trying to get out of the parking lot, getting into the stadium, jest fans...the list goes on. It does sound like the security guard was a DB though.

PatsDeb · Aug 22, 2013

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
It is cut-and-dried for the obvious reason that DEATH is not in the foreseeable consequences/risks of "botching" this situation. While you may be a good attorney, Deb, I really think you are failing to grasp that just because an employee does not follow company procedures, that does not make anyone liable for DEATH. Assuming (which is a huge assumption) that the security guard was negligent does not mean that the negligence makes him, the team, or the NFL liable for a person dying.

Clearly, the spectrum of foreseeable risks would involve an angry fan who at most might receive "damages" in the form of a refund. The foreseeable risks of arguing or swearing at fan? You are truly convinced that the man's DEATH should be in this spectrum? I am afraid that this is foolish and irrational. This man is a security guard, and the only situation he would be potentially liable for DEATH would if he were to botch a situation where he should have provided physical protection for a vulnerable fan but failed to follow proper procedures. This is not an ambulance driver or doctor here.

I am shocked that you still think there is a legitimate case.

Dear Ice, if the security guard was negligent, then he (and his employers) can be held liable for this man's death. If he's found to be negligent, then you've proven 2/3 of the case (duty and breach) and the only thing left is proximate cause. It's arguably foreseeable that failure to follow your training can upset someone to the point where they drop dead (that's why you have training - to avoid such a scenario). I am looking at it from an attorney's point of view. There is a case; the question is, how good is the case? Well, it's far from perfect for the reasons you state, but that doesn't mean there's no case at all.

Don't be shocked. I get paid to argue with people all day.

BennyBledsoe · Aug 22, 2013

Here's what I don't get... why this fan thought hyperventilating to the point of cardiac arrest was a good idea. There's not much worth getting THAT upset about.

$10 Million Wrongful death lawsuit filed against Patriots

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

The poster who James White said inspires him.

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

PatsFans.com Supporter

Wall of Fame

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Practice Squad Player

Practice Squad Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Similar threads