Friday, August 31, 2012

NFL, San Francisco 49ers Face Premise Liability Lawsuit

The two men who were beaten and shot during the NFL’s 49ers-Raiders game last August 20, 2011 are now suing the NFL, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Candlestick Park parking lot security company in a premise liability claim.

According to the lawsuits filed by Daniel Long and Gabriel Navarette before the San Francisco Superior Court, the 49ers failed to proactively provide an environment that is free from quarreling, fighting, taunting, threatening remarks, or gestures and gang activity.

The two 49ers fans claimed in their lawsuits that one of them was beaten unconscious while the other one who tried to rescue was shot four times.

Aside from the said incident, one more serious beating, two shooting scenes, and several alcohol-fueled fights occurred in Candlestick Park where the 49ers-Raiders game was held.

Shortly after the infamous game, the 49ers’ owner suggested to the NFL to cancel all future games between the two teams. Also, the 49ers tightened up its security measures, including instituting an alcohol ban on postgame and parking lots tailgating. 

However, during a subsequent playoff game, some New Orleans Saints fans still complained about harassment. Therefore, San Francisco police officers started attending games spying under opponent’s jerseys to police rabble-rousers.

The San Francisco 4ers, in its brief statement, claimed that the team is committed in providing a safe game environment for all fans. In fact, its commitment has earned the highest security level rating from the NFL. Meanwhile, both NFL and Landmark Security’s legal representatives declined to comment on the allegations hurled against them.

Unlike any other accidents like vehicle accidents where the cause of damage is apparent and the liability is comparatively clear, premise liability claims often present liability issues. In such cases, a victim has to prove that something within the property caused the injury. Furthermore, a victim has to prove that the property owner failed to do something despite the awareness of the existence of danger on the property, which eventually caused the injury, briefly explained by a Los Angeles premise liability lawyer.