Illinois: “A woman who tried to dance atop the bar at a Joliet tavern is suing the establishment after she fell and shattered her ankle.” Amy Mueller, who is in her early twenties, wants damages from Samy’s Bar and Grill for “allowing [her] to climb upon the bar without a step-stool, ladder or other device used for safety.”
“They encouraged their patrons to dance on the bar — they cajole them, they yell at them, but they fail to take any safety precautions whatsoever,” said Frank Cservenyak Jr., Mueller’s attorney.
Cservenyak adds that he “wouldn’t take a case I believe is frivolous.” (Steve Schmadeke, “Woman who hurt her ankle sues bar”, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 23; “Woman suing Joliet tavern for broken ankle”, AP/ABC7Chicago, Jul. 23).
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 6 comments }
Frivolous = A case where I don’t think I can make any money.
*IF* they actually do encourage patrons to dance on the bar, this case is not necessarily ridiculous.
Probably still a stretch (is they really do encourage it, how many other pople have done so without injury?), but not obscene. Oh, and the sought amount is only 5 digits? Wow… sadly, that’s refreshing! I’m used to seing 7+ digits in just about everything…
You’ve GOT to be poopin’ me on this. This is one for the hall o’ fame.
Duty to not render one’s self susceptible to the forces of Darwinism. That might need to be explored as a new legal theory.
I don’t imagine the bar had a safety rail, either. Under any sane system of torts, when an adult voluntarily subjects herself to a hazard in plain sight, she assumes the risk. Under our system….
Of course, the non-Justice Bork is suing under the same theory – he hurt himself trying to climb up on a stage without steps or a ladder, taking on a hazard that was in plain sight, and apparently unlike her, he’s suing everyone remotely connected to the case for millions.
So she wasn’t doing the ’safety dance’, then?
markm,
At least in Bork’s case, the podium was set up for speaking from, and he was the speaker… that is, the object he was to climb was specifically purposed for being stood on and spoken from. The bar was for eating, drinking, and possibly leaning on.
Not that I agree with Bork, either, but his case almost has merit (though the numbers are crazy). Hers seems to lack it entirely (though it’s nice to see semi-reasonable numbers).
Comments on this entry are closed.