New York Wrongful Death Lawyer Blog

In an article written by Steve Knopper, published in the September 15, 2011, issue, Who's to Blame in Deadly Stage Collapse Tragedies? it was stated that there is no system for inspecting U.S. concert stages, nor provision for the evacuation of large numbers of people in case of intense weather.

The article was written following the wind-caused collapse of the stage at the Indiana State Fair, where seven people perished on August 13, 2011, and within five days, a similar mishap at Belguim's Pukkelpop, in which five fatalities occurred.

Although the Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, blamed the deadly stage collapse on "fluke" weather, it appeared that State Fair officials had a 25 minute warning of the possibility of 60-mph winds, and did not notify the crowd gathered near the stage to leave the potentially dangerous area. Officials issued a tepid message of "where to evacuate", not directly saying "leave now!".

Although there are many staging companies involved in the concert presentation business, here are no consistent regulations or industry standards in the US for concert venue stages and structures.

Knopper said "Instantly, the Indiana State Fair and the Pukkelpop Festival joined the black list of concert tragedies: The Rolling Stones at Altamont in 1970, the Who at Cincinnati in 1979, Pearl Jam in Denmark in 2000 and the Great White Rhode Island nightclub fire of 2003".

Engineering companies hired by potential personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs and defendants are investigating the causes of the stage collapse.

Let the music loving concert-goer beware.

The Monroe County Sheriffs Office completed its investigation into the accident which killed Jennifer Simson, age 34, last February 25, in a parking lot behind the Town of Pittsford offices.

Apparently at the time of the accident, both the snowplow driver and Ms. Simson, on foot, were talking on cell phones. He was using "hands-free" equipment.

Driver distraction-caused accidents have been a common theme of several New York wrongful death lawyer blog entries. Thus, it appears that the driver, a Town of Pittsford employee, may have been distracted, at least cognitively, by use of a cell phone while driving.

One telling admission by the snowplow driver to investigators was that his rearview mirrors were obstructed by the salt spreader mounted on the rear of the truck.

As mentioned in an earlier blog entry, investigators would query the driver about his backwards visibility from the cab, and if the design of the cab, rear window and mirrors, were suited for backwards viewing.

Was he able to turn and "visually clear" the path the vehicle was intended to take while backing? We now know that his view behind the plow truck was at least partially obscured while backing up in the lot.

Whether going forwards or backwards in a motor vehicle, if you cannot see where you are going, you don't go...

The Associated Press reported "Child dies after 50-foot fall at Lakers game" that a two or three year-old child fell from a third tier luxury box at the Staples Center minutes after a Los Angeles Lakers - Golden State Warriors game on November 22, 2010.

Somehow the child was able to scale a clear safety barrier and fell onto arena seats below, hitting his head. He died soon after at the hospital.

Within an hour after the game, arena security officials could be seen examining and taking photos of a suite on the highest level on the west side of the building.

Who was responsible for what happened?

Where were the child's parents? Did they lose track of their baby?

What are the safety specifications that apply to arena architecture and design of seats and luxury boxes? Were they followed at the Staples Center? Was the safety barrier properly located and installed?

How would a two or three year-old escape the safety requirements and measures taken?

Any prospective Plaintiff should be conducting their investigation... as mentioned above, the potential Defendants were already at work documenting their side of this tragedy.

The civilized world was saddened to learn of the accidental death, during a practice run, of Olympic luge participant Nodar Kumaritashvili.

I have not watched the video of Kumaritashvili flying into a support pillar that held a canopy and lights on the track. The pillar was not padded in case a luge, bobsled or skeleton racer was thrown off course.

The Whistler Sliding Center opened in 2008. The facility was marketed as "faster, steeper and more intense than any track in history". According to many media sources, there have been numerous sled crashes since the facility opened, including some during the Olympic warm ups.

Was this a wrongful death, or had the athlete assumed the risk of this dangerous sport?

An argument can be made that the failure to pad a pillar when it was entirely foreseeable that a luge, bobsled or skeleton racer might leave the track at a high rate of speed was negligent, particularly on this track, where accidents were commonplace.

On the other hand, applying New York law in this instance, pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a participant "engaging in a sport or recreational activity... consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation" (Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471, 484 [1997]; see Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 438-440 [1986]; Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 AD3d 957, 958-959 [2008]).

Is anyone at fault for this man's death?

Was the track designed to be too fast, too steep or too intense?
Was the track operated as too dangerous to sledders?
Should the pillars adjacent to the track have been padded?
Would padding on the pillars have made a difference in this case?
Did the sledders assume the commonly appreciated risks of their sport on this track?
Was the risk involved on this track more than what was "commonly appreciated"?

Given the history of accidents on this track, this fatal one cannot be dismissed as a "fluke" occurrence; some degree of responsibility needs to be assigned to the party or parties involved.

In 2008, the family of a woman who was crushed when a ceiling collapsed in a Big Dig tunnel in July, 2006, settled their wrongful death suit against 15 defendants for $28 million.

Since then, other deadly issues have arisen, including the design of the pedestrian railings that stretch over six miles of the Big Dig system. These railings are a 32" concrete "Jersey barrier" topped with vertical supports that reach upward to a horizontal hand railing. A wrongful death suit, scheduled for trial in September, 2010, alleges design flaws in three respects: the vertical members of the railings are too widely spaced; they have sharp, rather than rounded, edges; and they are placed at a height which is approximately the same as a motorcyclist's seat or car window.

Seven motorists and one passenger have been killed, when they struck these style railings. The sharp edges of the railing, set at the height of the car window or motorcyclists' seat, grab onto the unfortunate person who comes into contact with them. This contact very often gruesomely dismembers and kills them.

If the design of the pedestrian railings included a higher "Jersey barrier", and or rounded corners on the horizontal members, it is alleged that a motorist or motorcyclist who struck the barrier would slide along it, rather than being caught by sharp edges. Some decedents have been traumatically removed from their vehicles by the railing.

It is not surprising that while plaintiffs allege a design flaw through their expert witnesses, the defendants have their own experts who deny any flaw and maintain that the railings were installed according to safety rules and regulations.

While it has been noted that some of these fatal accidents have been caused at least in part by motorist speeding, and often happen in curved roadway areas of the Big Dig, it seems intuitive that the railings were not designed to protect motorists using those areas of the project. For safety sake, the concrete "Jersey barrier" should be increased in height.