When fans purchase tickets to attend a sporting event, they have one simple expectation — that the facility owners and operators will provide a safe environment for watching the game. While facility owners and operators are not obligated to guarantee the safety of fans from every possible injury once fans come into the facility, the owners and operators are liable for those dangers that are known or that they should have discovered through reasonable inspections.
In fact, failure to protect people from known risks is the most common reason sports and recreation facilities end up in court. This is why sports facilities have a duty to hire security to protect fans from other unruly fans and maintain order at the event. One case that illustrates this obligation is Antunez v. Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 19STCV13057.
Concourse confrontation
Daniel Antunez and three of his friends were attending a 2018 Los Angeles Dodgers game to celebrate his birthday. During the game, one of Antunez’s friends, Vanessa Gonzales, accidentally spilled a beer on a fan in the seat in front of her. Antunez and his friends gave napkins to the fan to wipe off the liquid, but the fan’s wife was angry about the incident.
Later, when the couple left the game, the wife informed security that there had been a drink spilled on her husband. In the eighth or ninth inning, Gonzales and another friend went to the restroom, where Gonzales saw the woman who was upset about the drink-spilling incident. Gonzales and the woman got into a verbal argument near the restroom.
Antunez went to the concourse to look for Gonzales. When Antunez saw that Gonzales was upset, he tried to calm her down. A security person who heard the verbal argument told Gonzales that she would have to leave and pointed to the end of the concourse. While standing in the concourse, surrounded by four or five security personnel, Antunez informed security that he had to use the men’s room. Antunez pointed to the men’s room 15 to 20 feet away. He was told he could use the men’s room down the concourse on the way out.
As Antunez began to walk to the men’s room, which was near the fan who complained about the spilled drink, a member of stadium security forcefully grabbed him and spun him around, and three or four other security personnel brought him to the concourse floor. They placed him in handcuffs, despite the fact Antunez had not been charged with a crime.
Antunez fractured his ankle when he was thrown to the floor after trying unsuccessfully to defend himself during the confrontation. Antunez eventually needed three surgeries and screws in his ankle to correct the damage.
The Dodgers security team alleged that the force used on Antunez was appropriate, since they claimed Antunez punched one of the security personnel and attempted to choke him. However, there are multiple videos of the incident and none of them support these allegations. Instead, the videos show stadium security members being overly zealous in their attempt to prevent Antunez from walking away.
As a result of the injuries he suffered, Antunez sued the Los Angeles Dodgers for negligence, assault, battery and false imprisonment. Antunez claimed that the Dodgers, as owners and/or occupiers of land, owed a general duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of everyone who comes onto the property. Antunez claimed that the Dodgers, therefore, were negligent because they breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure Antunez’s safety, even after they knew or should have known of the propensity for violence of certain stadium security members.
Antunez sought $184,224 in special damages (medical expenses and lost wages), and $2.2 million in general damages based upon lifetime pain. Antunez also sought $2.5 million in punitive damages against the Dodgers.
In support of his punitive damages claim, Antunez argued that there were more than 15 suits filed against the Dodgers since 2018, largely involving law enforcement and security guards at games. Because of these prior claims, Antunez argued that the Dodgers had full knowledge of the propensity for certain security personnel to overstep the boundaries of violent behavior.
On Feb. 28, 2024, a jury agreed with Antunez. It held the Dodgers negligent for Antunez’s injuries and awarded him $108,500, including $89,000 for past economic damages ($75,000 for medical damages and $14,000 in lost wages). The jury also awarded Antunez $12,000 for pain and suffering and $7,500 in future expenses.
Comparative negligence
The jury, however, also concluded that Antunez was comparatively negligent. With comparative negligence, the jury assigns fault to both the plaintiff — in this case, Antunez — and the defendant — the Dodgers — and reduces the damages awarded to the plaintiff according to the percentage of fault. In this case, the jury determined that Antunez was 35% at fault in the incident. Therefore, when the court reduces the jury award of $108,500 by 35%, Antunez would only recover around $70,525 for his injuries.
It should be noted that not every state follows the same pure comparative negligence rules as California. Today, almost all states utilize a form of pure comparative negligence, also referred to as comparative fault, when addressing a negligence claim. Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might be partially to blame for their own injuries but are still allowed to recover damages depending upon their percentage of fault as determined by a judge or jury. States other than California that follow a form of pure comparative negligence are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington.
While not relevant in the California case, most states take a modified comparative negligence approach, in which the plaintiff may not be more at fault than the defendant. Some states — including Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah — subscribe to the 50 Percent Rule, in which the plaintiff’s percentage of fault must be less at fault than the defendant to recover damages. Other jurisdictions use the 51 Percent Rule, in which recovery by the plaintiff is possible even if the plaintiff is equally at fault. These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Another comparative negligence category, known as Slight/Gross Negligence Comparative Fault, is a variation employed only in South Dakota.
In addition to comparative negligence or fault, some states — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia — still recognize contributory negligence. Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff contributed even 1% to their own injuries, then the plaintiff’s negligence claim will fail. If applied in California, this would have left Antunez, who was 35% at fault, unable to collect anything.
Dodging liability
What can sports facility owners and operators learn from Antunez v. Los Angeles Dodgers? First, owners and operators need to ensure that security personnel understand that their job is to protect everyone in the stadium. With more than 15 lawsuits filed regarding overzealous security personnel, one could easily conclude that security is a problem at Dodger Stadium and that fans may not feel safe there.
Second, sports facility owners and operators must understand that they are liable for the retention of overzealous employees. After more than 15 lawsuits concerning overzealous security, the Dodgers should have known that stadium security was not performing the job properly. Owners and operators should be more proactive in training stadium security about the proper way to remove unruly and disruptive fans. As this case illustrates, stadium security should learn to listen to both sides of a disagreement before taking action to remove anyone.
Finally, once complaints are received about overzealous or incompetent personnel, it is essential that facility owners and operators act to either remove or discipline these employees. Failure to discipline or terminate a bad employee exposes facility owners and operators to negligent retention cases and other liability for the employee’s actions.
