Bryan Stow Update: The Legal Ramifications
In the past few days, there has been some back and forth between the attorney representing Bryan Stow, and the attorney representing the Los Angeles Dodgers in connection with the lawsuit brought by Stow. Stow is seeking compensation for his pain and suffering and economic loss as a result of the beating that occurred on opening day earlier this year. According to Sports Illustrated, Stow was admitted to the hospital with a blood alcohol level of .176%, more than twice the legal limit if he were driving. Jerome Jackson, the Dodgers' attorney, believes that Stow may have been partially to blame for the attack. Jackson reportedly stated, “I’ve been doing these cases for 23 years and I have never seen one yet in which it didn’t take at least two people to tango."
I have not seen the papers, but apparently the Dodgers' attorney filed a separate lawsuit against the two attackers and also blamed Stow. In New York or New Jersey, this is routinely done by filing a third-party complaint. The purpose of doing so is to allege that there may be other parties that are responsible for the injuries that the victim sustained. Strategically in cases like this, the plaintiff's attorney (such as Stow's attorney) usually will not name the attacker(s) involved as defendants, because an entity such as the Dodgers has "deep pockets," and the attorney representing the victim wants a jury to allocate as much blame as possible upon the entity with the financial capability to pay any judgment. Therefore, the attorney representing the main corporate defendant in a negligent security case will always name the assailants involved as third-party defendants, in order to reduce the percentage of fault that a jury may attribute to the corporate defendant. The attorney will also allege that the victim is guilty of comparative or contributory negligence.
It is important to keep in mind that these are just allegations that are commonly asserted at the outset of a lawsuit. The Dodgers' attorney has a responsibility to represent his client's interests. As bad as Dodger security may have been, the Dodgers did not beat Stow into a coma. Also, as unlikely as it seems at this point, discovery could potentially reveal that Stow incited the assault in some way, and therefore it is appropriate for the Dodgers' attorney to preserve this defense. In fact, it could be malpractice if the attorney did not. However, it appears that Jackson went too far in stating that it always "takes at least two people to tango." Without actual evidence that Stow was at fault, Jackson should not have said anything other than he is protecting the Dodgers' interests while discovery and investigation continue.
My name is Christopher Fusco. I am the managing partner of Callahan & Fusco, LLC with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.