Four fans who were injured at a Washington Commanders NFL game in 2022 when a railing in the stadium collapsed have settled their negligence claims against the team.
The confidential settlement comes after a federal appeals court last October found that the fans’ claims were most likely subject to the arbitration clause in the purchase terms and conditions. The appeals court reversed a district court that had denied the Washington Football Team’s motion to compel arbitration and allowed the case to proceed.
The four plaintiffs attended a game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Washington Football Team at FedExField in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. After the Eagles won 20 to 16, the group wanted to congratulate the Eagles players. Employees of the security company at the stadium directed them to a location near the tunnel where the Eagles players would be departing the field to go to their locker room. As the plaintiffs leaned against the railing to give congratulatory “high-fives” to the players, the railing collapsed, causing them to fall 5 to 10 feet to the concrete floor of the tunnel and sustain personal injuries.
They brought an action for negligence against the owner of the football team, the owner of the stadium, the company that provided security services at the stadium, and unidentified maintenance persons.
The Commanders and other defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions governing the purchase and use of the tickets.
The game tickets were bought by a friend and relative of the four plaintiffs through a third party online ticket seller. The buyer used his smartphone to purchase the tickets for the four plaintiffs and others and also to display the e-tickets at the gate for all of his guests to enter. The four defendants never saw the tickets.
The district court denied the football team’s motion to compel arbitration finding that there were factual disputes as to whether the arbitration clause was indeed agreed to by the ticket buyer, but that, even if he did enter into a contract with the team, evidence was lacking that the buyer was an agent for the defendants who could bind them to the arbitration clause.
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. Citing federal and Maryland law and precedents on arbitration, it reversed the district court and found the plaintiffs were bound by any contract that the ticket buyer may have entered into. As to whether the ticket buyer actually had a contract with the defendants, the appeals court remanded that question to the district court to hold proceedings to resolve the factual disputes.
After that reversal and remand, however, the parties entered into negotiations and on July 4 notified the court they had reached an agreement.
The original action complaint cited damages of more than $300,000 — or more than $75,000 for each plaintiff. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed except that the parties agreed to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The appeals court said that Maryland law was relevant. Consequently, whether the ticket buyer entered into a contract with the Washington Football Team to arbitrate and whether the plaintiffs are bound by that contract under the agency principle of apparent authority are determined under Maryland law.
Maryland recognizes the common law concept of agency, and has defined the agency relationship as a “fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other to so act.”
According to the Fourth Circuit, even though someone other than the plaintiffs was the purchaser of the tickets, it was reasonable for the Washington Football Team to assume that he did so both for himself and for the plaintiffs, as indicated by the purchase of multiple tickets and the plaintiffs’ entry into the stadium by means of those tickets. This, the court said, was “consistent with the universal practice of purchasing event tickets both for oneself and for others.”
Not only was it reasonable for the Washington Football Team’s to rely on the ticket buyer being an agent for the others, bur also by using the tickets on the buyer’s iPhone to enter the stadium, the four plaintiffs demonstrated that he was acting on their behalf.
“Such apparent authority is reflected not only in the circumstances of this case, but it reflects the reasonable practice of virtually every ticketed event where one person buys tickets for himself or herself as well as for family and friends, often to sit together,” the appeals court concluded.
Topics Washington
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
New Book Proposes Four-Prong Legal Strategy to Negate Nuclear Verdicts 
Ken Griffin-Backed Florida Bill for Non-Competes Becomes Law 
Insured Losses From US Hurricanes Could Rise by 50% With Global Warming 
Gun Makers Lose Appeal of New York Law Making Them Potentially Liable for Shootings 
