Contact Us

Please leave this field empty.

DISCLAIMER:

By sending this email information to Kershaw, Cook & Talley, an attorney-client relationship is not created between you and Kershaw, Cook & Talley, or any other party. An attorney-client relationship does not exist until a formal “Attorney Retainer/Fee Agreement” has been signed by all parties.

Concertgoers Injured After Venue Collapse

Comments Off on Concertgoers Injured After Venue Collapse

The_Susquehanna_Bank_Center-1400

According to Rolling Stone, several concertgoers filed suit today against Snoop Dogg, Wiz Khalifa and the owners of the venue “BB&T Pavilion” in New Jersey for an alleged failure to ensure the safety of the venue during a concert. The railing at the venue collapsed, causing injury to 42 out of the 50 people that fell through.

The collapse occurred when fans surged forward to see the rappers onstage, causing enough pressure to break the railing. Snoop Dogg and Wiz Khalifa were ushered off the stage and the venue cancelled the concert.

According to the attorneys, plaintiffs were trampled and pinned to the ground. They suffered numerous ailments including loss of consciousness, fractured bones, and emotional trauma. The attorney for the plaintiffs, Robert Mongeluzzi, attributes the failure of the railing to two factors: 1) a dangerous orientation of the stage, lacking barricades to control crowd flow, and 2) Snoop Dogg’s commanding the fans to surge the area, which they did.

Legal Rights of Those Injured

In order to recover from a defendant in a suit alleging injury due to a dangerous condition of public property, a plaintiff must prove:

1) that the defendant owned or controlled the property,

2) that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident,

3) that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of incident that occurred,

4) that negligent or wrongful conduct of the defendant’s employee, acting within the scope of his or her employment, created the dangerous condition (or alternatively, that the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected plaintiffs from it),

5) that the plaintiff was harmed, and

6) that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

If the plaintiff satisfies these elements, a court must enter a judgment for the injured plaintiffs. If you or a loved one has suffered injury resulting from a dangerous condition on public property, the injury was reasonably foreseeable, and it could have been prevented if not for the negligent or wrongful conduct of the owner, contact our office.

Web Statistics