The Kansas City Royals’ hot dog trial has one fan named John Coomer claiming he was injured by a flying wiener tossed by the team mascot Sluggerrr. Mr. Coomer suffered from two injuries, including a detached retina, and is seeking cash compensation in excess of $20,000 in his lawsuit.
In a related report by The Inquisitr, the Spider-Man trial involved a woman who was clobbered by a costumed superhero wannabe, but the man claims he was acting in self defense after being smacked by a rock hard snowball.
We’re hoping it’s a different guy (you can check by his smell, you know), but another Spider-Man groped a woman and was arrested for the indecent act. Still, that’s not nearly as bad as Spider-Man’s erection on a statue which was built near a children’s playground.
Now, this is not actually the first time for the Royals hot dog trial. The fan originally attempted to sue the baseball team, but apparently was shot down because of the so-called baseball rule, which protects teams from being sued over fan injuries caused by events on the field, court or rink.
In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court decided the baseball rule does not apply since the injury was allegedly caused by the Royals mascot throwing the hot dogs into the stands, and as such, should not be considered an inherent risk of watching the game:
“That risk is no more inherent in watching a game of baseball than it is inherent in watching a rock concert, a monster truck rally, or any other assemblage where free food or T-shirts are tossed into the crowd to increase excitement and boost attendance. No such argument applies to Sluggerrr’s hot dog toss. Millions of fans have watched the Royals (and its forebears in professional baseball) play the National Pastime for the better part of a century before Sluggerrr began tossing hotdogs, and millions more people watch professional baseball every year in stadiums all across the country without the benefit of such antics.”
It’s claimed that in the first Royals hot dog trial, the jury was instructed to determine whether or not the risk of injury was an inherent risk from a baseball game. But Royals attorney Scott Hoffer says a new Royals hot dog trial may still have the same result because the first jury also found Coomer at fault because he was not aware of his surroundings:
“Notably, the Supreme Court did not say the jury was wrong when it assigned Mr. Coomer 100% of the fault. We don’t see how what the Supreme Court did will affect how a jury views this case.”
If the new Kansas City Royals hot dog trial favors Mr. Coomer then it’s believed the ruling could force sports teams throughout America to change the way their mascots are allowed to spread mischief and fun throughout a game. Do you think the lawsuit is fair to sue the team for the eye injury?