Comments on: Assumption of Risk: Soccer Denied Protection… America’s Pastime Still Safe?

By: Matt Breeden

Matt Breeden — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:34:26 +0000

Hey France,
Good to see your here, and good points as usual. I tend to agree. The ice hockey comparison is spot on. Thanks for reading.

By: France Corbeil

France Corbeil — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:00:44 +0000

Hi Matt!
Interesting subject… If I take the other position, let’s say that:
a) The lady saw pre-game going on… and saw the players kicking balls at the same time;
b) Certainly other balls went in the stands…
c) She did not go there unaware of the game: anyone going one place will have an objective and know what they are looking for… going shopping, or dinner or sports game. All the same: you know at least a minimum of the “risks”…
d) The lady was not there alone… the person with her at least knew the game… she had a minimum of knowledge of the game and of the risks…
e) If the lady had a hard time going back to her seat, why she did not wait after the practice? She saw the conditions of the local venue… she cannot think before putting herself at risk?
f) The lady has no judgment… she does not have the obligation to take care of her?
g) As a hockey fan… when I go to an outside ice rink during winter, there is no fences all around… and I check the pucks during the practices and during the game!
h) Which party has most responsibilities: the lady for herself or the promoter for all spectators?

Anyhow, its a fun one, the type of case I would like to read about on your Web Site!

Like the one with Gerry-Kevin and my ex partner… Elliot… looks like a lot of fun, they are restarting from scratch!

A+ France

By: Followup - Assumption of Risk: Soccer Denied Protection… America’s Pastime Still Safe? « The Sports Law Guru

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:20:35 +0000

[...] Hartsoe, the attorney which brought the Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc. case, posted a comment on my earlier column (scroll down to the bottom of the column to read the comment). I would like to thank Mr. Hartsoe [...]

By: Tony Hartsoe

Tony Hartsoe — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:57:48 +0000

Matt, I’m the attorney that brought this case on behalf of Ms. Allred. I certainly respect your opinion, but there is some things you are missing here.

The court also noted that in the baseball cases, there IS a duty to put protection for patrons behind home plate. Why? Because that is the most dangerous part of the stands and spectators cannot be reasonably expected to be able to avoid the ball in that area, especially when coming off a foul tip. As long as stadium owners put up nets/fence, or other protection there, they are off the hook.

Here, the most dangerous spots in the stadium, as you noted, are immediately behind the goals. There were no nets or protection of any kind, and the goals are 10 feet from the seats.

Next, Ms. Allred was not sitting in the stands. This happened during pre-game warmups, and she was passing through that area as it was the only way to get to her seats. She had to watch where she was walking, and could not do that and watch the field at the same time. Had she tried and fallen, I’m sure the defense would have asked why she wasn’t looking where she was going.

Further, during warmups, several players kick the ball at the goal at one time. This is obviously different from game play where there is only one ball to track, usually while you are sitting and actually able to watch the field. These balls travel at speeds of around 60 mph when coming off the foot of the likes of Mia Hamm.

Finally, what’s fair? This woman and her family have been greatly effected, as she suffered a closed head injury that ended a bright career and future for a very intelligent and gifted woman, and she suffers monthly with the after-effects of this injury. The stadium costs multiple millions of dollars to build. The game was pro, not Johnny playing the neighbor kids, and the players (Time Warner, etc) were not in it for “kicks”, they were in it for money. Less than $500 (or $1000 depending on who you ask) would have put nets behind both goals, and everyone would be protected. $500 bucks balanced against people’s lives. Sorry, the minimum standard of baseball should apply here as well — nets behind the goals are required, weren’t there, and the only thing left for Ms. Allred is a court battle she surely would like to forget about — she just wanted to watch a little soccer.