Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. (VT Photo)
It’s been lingering since March 31, 2011. On that opening day for Major League Baseball’s Dodgers, held at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, two attendees in Dodgers' gear severely assaulted Giants' fan Bryan Stow, resulting in a medically-induced coma and lifelong injuries for Stow, and a large lawsuit for the organization. A jury awarded Stow millions in damages, holding the team partially responsible for the judgment.
VP Stadium Operations for the St. Louis Cardinals Joe Abernathy, who is a past president of the Stadium Managers Association and current Stadium Manager Director for the organization, said he doesn’t believe stadium managers will significantly change their way of doing business as a result of the verdict.
“I think we all have measures in place to help provide the level of security we think we need,” said Abernathy, who added that MLB has a consistent code of conduct that all stadium managers work to adhere to.
The jury found the Dodgers organization 25-percent responsible for the tragic incident, designating each attacker 37.5-percent responsible. Former Dodgers Owner Frank McCourt was not held responsible. The jury awarded Stow $17.8 million — but the Dodgers are on the hook for much more than the aforementioned 25 percent of that figure.
“You do the math and it doesn’t make sense, but you have to understand California law,” said Bill Squires, expert witness for the defense and former VP and GM of Giants Stadium (replaced by MetLife Stadium) in East Rutherford, N.J., who also spent time as director of stadium operations at Yankee Stadium in New York.
As the verdict stands, the Dodgers are being held responsible for $15 million. Defendants in personal injury cases are considered both jointly and severally liable for the economic losses of a plaintiff under California Law. Because the Dodgers were found even partially liable, and the other two responsible defendants, Louis Sanchez and Marvin Norwood, are imprisoned and unable to pay, the Dodgers are responsible for the full $14-million amount assigned to economic losses. The economic losses account for things like medical expenses and loss of earnings. When it comes to the $4 million awarded for general damages including pain and suffering, the Dodgers organization is responsible for only its determined liability of 25 percent, or $1 million.
The verdict didn’t come as a surprise to Steven Adelman of Adelman Law Group, who has worked extensively with International Association of Venue Managers and is an instructor at IAVM’s Facility Management School.
“Because the jury knew that Bryan Stow faced a lifetime of expensive medical care, I think any reasonable person would have expected the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff to some extent,” said Adelman, who added that Stow’s physical presence in the courtroom — where he was brought in a wheelchair to show scars on his head — made him a sympathetic victim.
He added that the jury likely knew that if the Dodgers weren’t held at least partially responsible, Stow and his family would never see any financial compensation as the attackers would be unable to pay.
“I believe the jury understood who truly was to blame for Bryan Stow’s assault, but I further believe the jury was smart enough to know that those two guys don’t have any money,” said Adelman. “If there was money that was going to pay for Bryan Stow’s medical expenses it had to come from someone other than those two assailants, and the Dodgers are the only party left.”
Stow suffered his injuries in a parking lot outside Dodgers Stadium.
Venue managers are hesitant to comment on the case, with representatives from Milwaukee Brewers and Cleveland Indians declining to comment.
Others commented, but not on the actual case.
Jay Alves, VP of Communication for Colorado Rockies, said the team wouldn’t be commenting, “other than to say the safety and security of our fans is our number one priority and we do not release any other information as far as our security or how we do things here.”
The Dodgers organization also took a measured approach, with PR Manager Jon Chapper stating that the Dodgers are “not going to comment on specifics related to the Los Angeles Dodgers security plans or operations other than to state that security is a paramount priority of the Los Angeles Dodgers.”
When it comes down to the arguments of the actual trial, the plaintiff’s attorney focused on the idea that the Dodgers did not have enough security on site and should have identified the assailants as a potential threat.
“The plaintiff’s argument as I understand it is there basically was a continuum of bad behavior inside the stadium,” said Adelman, who added that reports have said that the two aggressors had been vocally abusive and throwing things inside the stadium. “If the jury believed that testimony, they might have concluded that the Dodgers had roughly nine innings to figure out these guys were bad news and eject them or move them.”
Records for the Dodgers showed that security for the 2011 opening night game was actually at an all-time high.
Due to this, Adelman said the outcome of the verdict doesn’t give a clear takeaway message for Venues Today readers.
“I don’t think the testimony shows any deviation from the standard of care that your readers could point to and say, ‘oh, we need to change this practice ourselves so that nothing like this happens in our venues,’” he said. “What happened in 2011 at Dodger Stadium is addressing things your readers are already sensitive to because they’re industry professionals.”
Guggenheim Baseball Management bought the Dodgers in May 2012 and began a $100-million renovation of the iconic stadium that took place through the winter. (VT Photo)
The increased security reflected the fact that the Giants and the Dodgers are big rivals, with many teams increasing security on a per-event basis. According to Squires, a venue can have the perfect plans and still have an incident at an event.
“You can’t guarantee that everyone will always be safe and secure at every event,” he said. “You guarantee it by not having a game at all.”
Squires added that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all plan in regard to security or any venue employee group. With baseball being such a large and diverse season, there are some games with 50,000 attendees and others with 25,000.
“It’s not only who you’re playing, it’s what day of the week it is, if it’s a day or night game, what the weather forecast is — there are so many variables that dictate staffing plans,” he said.
Reviewing best practices after each event and changing staffing accordingly are practices that MLB organizations already have in place, leading some to believe that the verdict in the Stow case will have little impact on current MLB venues.
“We’re not going to react as a result of the lawsuit being settled,” said Abernathy. “Our reaction came more when the events actually happened to sort of self-evaluate and make sure we have everything in place to ensure the safety of our fans, but that’s something we do after every homestand and at the beginning of every season.”
Squires agreed that there are lessons learned from every event at any venue. He considers venue managers to be very similar to one another in that they are perfectionists.
“Good enough is simply just not good enough, and all the guys that run venues have the same personalities,” he said. “We all pay attention to detail and we’re never totally satisfied because we always know that we can do something better — and that’s a good attitude to have.”
“That’s the business we’re in,” he added. “We’re always briefing and debriefing events and figuring out how to make them better.”
A facility’s security parameter has expanded over the years, with Dr. Lou Marciani of the National Center for Spectator Sports Safety and Security saying that parking lots used to be an afterthought until tailgating became big business.
As a result, the perimeter of responsibility for venues has expanded.
“This lawsuit should cause venue managers to look at monitoring the wider perimeter at their facilities so I think you’ll see much more of an effort to look at technology and manpower away from the stadium,” said Marciani.
He believes surveillance technology will become more important in stadium parking lots, with new capabilities in surveillance including solar panels and micropower available to shore up video surveillance capabilities. People, processes and technologies are three important aspects when it comes to checking and increasing security at entertainment venues.
“The real takeaway is that we’re responsible, whether it’s in the parking lot or inside the stadium, and if we’re going to mitigate risk for fans then it’s our responsibility to cover the whole area, which is what I think the jury decided,” he said. That affects budgets, manpower, training and exercises.
“You pay now or you pay later, and I think the Dodgers have paid later,” Marciani added.
Interviewed for this story: Joe Abernathy, (314) 345-9600; Steven Adelman, (480) 209-2426; Jay Alves, (303) 292-0200; Tyler Barnes, (414) 902-4468; Jon Chapper, (323) 224-1589; Lou Marciani, (601) 266-5675; Bill Squires, (201) 951-2867