The Rams are long gone, but St. Louis could still be on the hook for player's 2015 injury

[Selassie I]

We all need to realize how lucky we are (especially Bush) that "that woman" is no longer the owner. This kind of penalty with her at the helm would have caused major problems from top to bottom for the team. Possibly disastrous... even emergency sale of the franchise level problems.

Now... this kind of penalty can probably be taken care of with the spare change found in Stan's couch cushions.

 

[nanotech]

Jeez, can all of you just get a life. Trying to justify your position in this is a joke.

 

[RhodyRams]

Jeez, can all of you just get a life. Trying to justify your position in this is a joke.

really ?

necessary?

 

[Dxmissile]

The NFL handles how the playing field looks and how it operates. The Dome was not just a football field so on game days the NFL has field crews that goes out and inspect the field and the surrounding area to make sure it meets NFL Guidelines. For 20 plus years those guidelines didn’t cause a problem until Bush and even when you look at the play it seems to me that he didn’t even try to stop his momentum. The CVC and the city of St. Louis owns the Dome but the NFL dictates the specifics.

 

[LesBaker]

A St Louis jury?

Hell hath no fury like a football fan scorned.

my very same exact thots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
train

shouldn't the owners of the stadium be on the hook for that , didn't he slip on the cement or something

not sure that would be the Rams fault

I should add if the Rams or the Dome Ops staff knew of this hazard and didn't address it - then that is negligent.

I do think the owners of the Ed should have been liable and not so much the Rams. Unless, because they rented the place out, that they were responsible for all possible safety issues. I have a feeling that Kroenke will appeal, regardless...

Lol all this stl Hate just gotta love it. Definitely thought we was passed this obviously not

The CVC and the city of St. Louis owns the Dome but the NFL dictates the specifics.

OK first this has NOTHING to do with STL hating the Rams. Those stirring that up should chill out.

This is a simple case of who did or didn't do this, and it falls on the Rams. It's "right or wrong", and yeah it's that cut and dried.

The dome is not responsible for this because in large part the tenant decided what to do with the floor. The dome didn't prevent them from covering the cement, they opted to leave it partially uncovered when they could have completely covered it. And did exactly that after the injury to Bush. This is how it works in that world, and like I said I know this from experience renting large scale venues.

I knew this was going to shake out this way, there is no other way for it to go..........

@LoyalRam you summed it up, as the entity renting the venue they have the responsibility. If I had something put in place that caused an injury the venue isn't responsible for what I did. There are some things the venue is responsible for like functioning fire exit signs and defibrillators onsite and other code related safety issues. But dressing out the space is up to the Rams. I don't think Kroenke will appeal I think he cuts the check and moves on.

 

[LesBaker]

I forgot to add this quote from the article.

The judge dismissed the Dome from the case.

The jury found the Rams 100 percent liable for Bush's injury. He had also sued public agencies that own and operate the Dome, but they were dismissed from the suit by a judge last week after arguing the football team had control of operations at the facility on game days.

 

[nighttrain]

i'm sure Kroneke has many attorneys working for him, so to appeal cost him nothing but filing fees, but time will tell
train

 

[Soul Surfer]

The judge dismissed the Dome from the case.

they were dismissed from the suit by a judge last week after arguing the football team had control of operations at the facility on game days.

The judge was a former Rams fan too.

 

[nanotech]

really ?

necessary?

I guess I just don't understand fans and why this subject would mean something to them. I am certain I don't have the passion for all things Ram that most posters do. And, my post did sound judgmental. Poor choice of words.
Necessary? No. But, I don't know if anything I have posted was really necessary.

 

[LesBaker]

i'm sure Kroneke has many attorneys working for him, so to appeal cost him nothing but filing fees, but time will tell
train

IMO he will settle or pay and move on. I'm sure he doesn't want to fight this, especially since in appeal he has no shot to win, just like this time around.

 

[Soul Surfer]

IMO he will settle or pay and move on. I'm sure he doesn't want to fight this, especially since in appeal he has no shot to win, just like this time around.

They always appeal.

It is way cheaper to pay the lawyers to drag this thing out for years and convince Bush to settle for less.

And depending on how Bush is doing financially, he might accept that lower offer.

 

[Soul Surfer]

..... in appeal he has no shot to win, just like this time around.

Why does he have no chance to win on appeal?

More importantly, why did he have no chance to win, "this time around"?

 

[LesBaker]

Why does he have no chance to win on appeal?

More importantly, why did he have no chance to win, "this time around"?

I've seen enough of these types of contracts to know that the person or entity renting the venue is in complete control of how the venue is "dressed out" or decorated or whatever term you want to use. So the Rams had someone telling the Dome where to put everything that the Dome was supplying and they do what they are told or instructed, the Rams told their own staff where to put things that they were supplying, and the Rams told any outside contractors where and what to do.

The Rams had complete control. The Dome isn't who finally decided to leave the cement floor partially uncovered.

I'd bet money that somewhere in the Dome or the old Rams offices......probably now in a storage facility, are cad drawings showing everything in great detail.

 

[dbrooks25]

OK first this has NOTHING to do with STL hating the Rams. Those stirring that up should chill out.

This is a simple case of who did or didn't do this, and it falls on the Rams. It's "right or wrong", and yeah it's that cut and dried.

The dome is not responsible for this because in large part the tenant decided what to do with the floor. The dome didn't prevent them from covering the cement, they opted to leave it partially uncovered when they could have completely covered it. And did exactly that after the injury to Bush. This is how it works in that world, and like I said I know this from experience renting large scale venues.

I knew this was going to shake out this way, there is no other way for it to go..........

@LoyalRam you summed it up, as the entity renting the venue they have the responsibility. If I had something put in place that caused an injury the venue isn't responsible for what I did. There are some things the venue is responsible for like functioning fire exit signs and defibrillators onsite and other code related safety issues. But dressing out the space is up to the Rams. I don't think Kroenke will appeal I think he cuts the check and moves on.

+1. Great response.

 

[LA_Rams_#29]

We all need to realize how lucky we are (especially Bush) that "that woman" is no longer the owner. This kind of penalty with her at the helm would have caused major problems from top to bottom for the team. Possibly disastrous... even emergency sale of the franchise level problems.

Now... this kind of penalty can probably be taken care of with the spare change found in Stan's couch cushions.

these situations are what insurance policies are for...and we're likely to see some appeals on this.

 

[LesBaker]

these situations are what insurance policies are for...and we're likely to see some appeals on this.

When a venue is rented, especially when a huge crowd and alcohol are present LOADS of insurance is in place. The tenant is required to have insurance. In this case it was probably not for players, but for people in the crowd, workers etc. It's possible but I don't think it's likely or Bush would be going after an insurance company.

Venues are ALWAYS added to the policy as as "additional insured" to cover themselves from somebody getting hurt or something happening that was unforeseen. In this case like I said Bush would be going after them as well. They would have been named in the suit.

IMO Kroenke can appeal this all he wants. This was the responsibility of the Rams.

 

[LA_Rams_#29]

When a venue is rented, especially when a huge crowd and alcohol are present LOADS of insurance is in place. The tenant is required to have insurance. In this case it was probably not for players, but for people in the crowd, workers etc. It's possible but I don't think it's likely or Bush would be going after an insurance company.

Venues are ALWAYS added to the policy as as "additional insured" to cover themselves from somebody getting hurt or something happening that was unforeseen. In this case like I said Bush would be going after them as well. They would have been named in the suit.

IMO Kroenke can appeal this all he wants. This was the responsibility of the Rams.

I doubt there is anyplace in America today where you could house a professional sports event without insurance coverage related to the facility. Pro sports teams have insurance policies that cover injuries to players they still have to pay, who get hurt playing their given sports. That's pretty common practice.

 

[Akrasian]

IMO Kroenke can appeal this all he wants. This was the responsibility of the Rams.

I think the real goal of the appeal is the punitive damages. I suspect the Rams followed NFL guidelines, and felt that they weren't negligent. Punitive damages, as the name implies, are supposed to be for parties that are being reckless. Given how long the field had been like that, and the industry standards, I'm not sure that 150% of damages for punitive is appropriate - and in fact, it's very common for punitive damages to be reduced on appeal.

 

[LesBaker]

I think the real goal of the appeal is the punitive damages. I suspect the Rams followed NFL guidelines, and felt that they weren't negligent. Punitive damages, as the name implies, are supposed to be for parties that are being reckless. Given how long the field had been like that, and the industry standards, I'm not sure that 150% of damages for punitive is appropriate - and in fact, it's very common for punitive damages to be reduced on appeal.

You could be right on that but one thing working against the Rams is that there was an injury the week before and they didn't do anything.

If I'm Kroenke I cut the check and close the matter.

 

[Akrasian]

You could be right on that but one thing working against the Rams is that there was an injury the week before and they didn't do anything.

If I'm Kroenke I cut the check and close the matter.

Yes, there was an injury. There also have been complaints about how long it took to make changes. Did the Rams request changes be made, and they just took a while? That's how I interpreted it, anyway, but could be wrong. If the Rams requested a change on Monday, but there had to be a minor modification to the contract, that could easily take a few days, then it would take a few days to get the equipment in.

I don't know, but the court will decide ultimately. If they're being punished for starting the change after the first injury in 20 years, and not having it rushed by both the stadium bureaucracy AND by the supplier, I could see it being reduced on appeal. In theory Bush was made financially whole just by the $5 million portion of the judgement.

Incidentally, Kroenke likely has paid already - generally you need to put the full judgement into escrow before appealing it.