The Los Angeles Dodgers’ bad case of déjà vu

When news first broke in March of a brain-damaged man whose injuries stemmed from an attack in the Dodger Stadium parking lot, Angelenos had an uneasy sense of déjà vu. The incident, which left victim Rafael Reyna with a fractured skull and traumatic brain injury after being beaten by fellow Dodger fans, evoked memories of a 2011 incident that left a paramedic named Bryan Stow permanently disabled. Dodger fans attacked Stow, a Giants fan, from behind, and knocked him unconscious in the very same parking lot, leaving him reliant on seizure medications and 24-hour care. The jury in the highly publicized 2011 case awarded $18 million to Stow ($13.9 million was against the Dodgers and rest against the attackers), and determined the Dodgers were partly responsible because they failed to provide adequate security.

Although a potential prolonged litigation and a jury trial is not out of the question, especially if the Dodgers have actively beefed up their security plans and measures since the 2011 incident, the likely outcome of this recent incident is out-of-court settlement because both sides are likely to face serious challenges if this case goes to jury trial.

For the plaintiff, lack of security cases against property owners involving intervening criminal acts always present significant risk of unfavorable jury trial outcomes becomes juries are inclined to put the entire responsibility on the third-party attackers. Clearly, Stow and his lawyers overcame this hurdle and convinced the jury that the Dodgers shared responsibility for Stow's beating by failing to provide adequate security. This provides hope for the current case.

It may be much more difficult in Reyna's case, however, to establish liability against the Dodgers if the Dodgers -- learning a valuable lesson in the Stow trial where the jury found that the Dodgers breached their duty to protect the fans by not having adequate security when Stow was attacked -- have since taken reasonable steps to improve the security at Dodgers stadium.

For the defense, the chilling similarity between these two tragedies is unlikely to escape the notice of jurors. Even if the Dodgers have improved security since the Stow incident, defending this case during a jury trial will necessarily involve picking jury members who have not heard about the Stow incident and/or convince the jury to not be influenced by the prior incident. This will be a difficult and risky strategy because the plaintiff's attorneys will do everything possible to introduce facts regarding previous incidents and Dodgers' failure to improve security. The ultimate question will be whether the Dodgers provided reasonably adequate security on the day of the incident.

So much of evidence and testimony will come down to a "battle of experts," with authorities in the security industry arguing about whether the attack could have been prevented with better security measures.

Here, the Dodgers will have to walk a narrow line. They want to avoid evoking too many memories of the 2011 incident, which might sway jurors toward a conclusion that they were on notice such a tragedy could occur, but failed to do enough to prevent it from happening again. Yet at the same time, they want to show that they in fact have taken security very seriously in the years since the Stow incident occurred and had appropriate security in place on the night in question.

The best strategy for the Dodgers' defense would be to admit that the tragedy was foreseeable, to admit that they have a duty to provide security, to show evidence that they met that duty, yet to remind jurors that even with the best security that money can buy, it's not possible to thwart every single incident in a packed stadium. The defense's best hope is that the jury would conclude that it's unfair to make owners pay for something they took every possible reasonable measure to try to prevent.

On the plaintiff's side, it's important not to overvalue the case, especially given the potential difficult liability issue if the Dodgers have improved security after the Stow incident. In a case involving an intervening criminal act(s), jurors, quite rightly, are going to put the primary responsibility on the attacker(s). Violent crimes hold tremendous sway with juries. So, the challenge for Reyna's lawyers will be convincing the jury to see beyond the intervening criminal act, and to where the Dodgers failed in their duty to protect their customers from one another. For the plaintiff to prevail, the jury must understand that though the Dodgers didn't directly attack Reyna, they are still responsible for his damages if they did not provide adequate security that could have prevented the attack.

The takeaway for all property owners and for the attorneys who advise them should be this: don't put profits above safety. Have independent security experts review security plans, and ensure they are in compliance with the highest industry standards. And remember that standards change. September 11 changed travel. Las Vegas changed music festivals. So institute a yearly audit of security plans, anticipate the trends, and respond to them. Property owners who invest in top-level security won't only be protecting their patrons, they'll be protecting themselves. 