I thought one of the principles of negligence is that the consequences have to be foreseeable, i.e., the negligence cannot be separated from the injury by a series of random events. The rule prohibiting artificial noisemakers was presumably in place to prevent excessive noise, not the prevent the noisemakers from being used as weapons. Therefore if the plaintiff had suffered hearing loss as a result of the cowbell being used to make noise, the SEC would be negligent causing harm. But since the noisemaker was used to bludgeon someone, the plaintiff would have to argue that it was foreseeable that the cowbell could be used to cause the bludgeoning and therefore should have been banned.
Any liability claims people out there? I’m just trying to clarify my understanding. I wil abstain from any Christopher Walken/cowbell jokes for the time being.
Good analyis and on point. Two additional issues. One additional point. This incident occured AFTER the game and probably not in the stadium. The suit is groundless and should be dismissed if anyone can find a judge who still has his balls.
“Brasher’s lawsuit alleges that when Vowell struck him with the cowbell, he was knocked unconscious and suffered a 4-inch laceration that required staples to close the wound.” Dang, was the cow attached to the bell at the time?
first of all this not an artificial noisemaker. the cowbells are made for a reason and they are for the cows and not truly made to be used at the ballpark. but then again, we see the oversized clappers, horns at the soccer games and many other items. but a cowbell would be like having an ironfist, it could literally knock someone out. but then again, did this happen in the stadium? or outside of the stadium? if it was done inside, was there treatment done there by any emergency medical teams? or did something happen elsewhere and this guy is trying to make more out of the issue? the lawyer trying to make more money?
1) it was a post-game incident, that means it could have happened anywhere?
2) SEC can only keep the rule enforced for any item brought into the park, but not in a parking lot.
3) it could have happened in the parking lot and the bell could have been kept in the car.
4) if happened off campus grounds, then only the attacker is responsible, whether or not it was based on a celebration of the game.
5) you don’t see folks suing the NFL because their team won and the losing team decided to set my car on fire!
6) ban is old, 1974 – when was the last time it was actually reviewed and updated?
I thought one of the principles of negligence is that the consequences have to be foreseeable, i.e., the negligence cannot be separated from the injury by a series of random events. The rule prohibiting artificial noisemakers was presumably in place to prevent excessive noise, not the prevent the noisemakers from being used as weapons. Therefore if the plaintiff had suffered hearing loss as a result of the cowbell being used to make noise, the SEC would be negligent causing harm. But since the noisemaker was used to bludgeon someone, the plaintiff would have to argue that it was foreseeable that the cowbell could be used to cause the bludgeoning and therefore should have been banned.
Any liability claims people out there? I’m just trying to clarify my understanding. I wil abstain from any Christopher Walken/cowbell jokes for the time being.
I got a fever, and the only presciption is more… COWBELL!!
Good analyis and on point. Two additional issues. One additional point. This incident occured AFTER the game and probably not in the stadium. The suit is groundless and should be dismissed if anyone can find a judge who still has his balls.
No wonder the NCAA made such a retarded decision on Cam Newton in the SEC, they had to start focusing on this important cowbell issue. GO DUCKS
“Brasher’s lawsuit alleges that when Vowell struck him with the cowbell, he was knocked unconscious and suffered a 4-inch laceration that required staples to close the wound.” Dang, was the cow attached to the bell at the time?
first of all this not an artificial noisemaker. the cowbells are made for a reason and they are for the cows and not truly made to be used at the ballpark. but then again, we see the oversized clappers, horns at the soccer games and many other items. but a cowbell would be like having an ironfist, it could literally knock someone out. but then again, did this happen in the stadium? or outside of the stadium? if it was done inside, was there treatment done there by any emergency medical teams? or did something happen elsewhere and this guy is trying to make more out of the issue? the lawyer trying to make more money?
1) it was a post-game incident, that means it could have happened anywhere?
2) SEC can only keep the rule enforced for any item brought into the park, but not in a parking lot.
3) it could have happened in the parking lot and the bell could have been kept in the car.
4) if happened off campus grounds, then only the attacker is responsible, whether or not it was based on a celebration of the game.
5) you don’t see folks suing the NFL because their team won and the losing team decided to set my car on fire!
6) ban is old, 1974 – when was the last time it was actually reviewed and updated?