Bryan Stow vs Los Angeles Dodgers Case Analysis

This report analyzes the case between Bryan Stow v. Los Angeles Dodgers revealing the detailed information about the incident, the trial, and verdict. The report also examines the party that is wrong in the case. Fact: On 31 March, 2011, Bryan Stow, aged 42, a paramedic from Santa Cruz, California, who was the plaintiff in this case, traveled with his three fellow paramedics to the Dodger Stadium to watch the opening day game between the San Francisco Giants, and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Stow, who was the fan of SA Giants was walking in the parking lot of the stadium following the 2-1 Dodger victory. Suddenly, Louie Sanchez punched him on the head provoking Stow to lay flat on the ground. While Stow laid on the ground, Sanchez, and his friend named Marvin Norwood subsequently kicked Stow on the head making him sustain traumatic brain injuries. Bryan Stow was a disabled adult, however, his conservators David Stow, and Elizabeth Stow sued the Los Angeles (Dodgers.2014).

The two family also sued Frank Mccourt, who was the owner of the LA Dodger at the time of this altercation in 2011. Moreover, Stow sued other entities that were associated with the LA Dodger and Mccourt, however, the case was ultimately dismissed before the trial. The final trial proceeded against LA Dodgers and Frank Mccourt, however, he was only able received a claim on premise liability and negligence. (Baxler, 2012). Subsequently, LA Dodger filed a suit against Norwood and Sanchez.

These two men had been arrested and charged for a criminal offense for an assault against Stow. Both Norwood and Sanchez pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to prison in February 2014. However, the court claimed that LA Dodgers was contributorily liable for the Stow incident. According to Bryan Stow, Sanchez and Norwood attacked him because he wore the San Francisco Giants clothing. Case Plaintiff's (Stow) counsel argued Los Angeles Dodgers and Mccourt were negligent in their responsibilities because they did not provide adequate security in the stadium.

The Counsel maintained that two security personnel were assigned to the post, however, they did not arrive on time to intervene or prevent the assault. The plaintiff's counsel also argued that the incident was due to the negligence because the inadequate security system was not put in place to save the assault. According to Plaintiff counsel, it was apparent that Sanchez and Norwood were unruly, throwing food and yelling obscenities at people wearing Giants clothing, yet, they were not being ejected from the stadium despite their inappropriate behaviors.

Moreover, they were not approached by the security personnel to stop their behavior, this act of negligence allowed the two people to continue drinking and took the altercation on Stow after the second game. On the other hand, the Counsel of Los Angeles Dodgers and Mccourt argued that it was impossible to prevent every possible incident in a stadium that occupied 56,000 people.

The Counsel also contended that the Stadium personnel provided a high level of security during the Opening Day game and more than 100 uniformed LA police officers were deployed to enhance additional security. (Mcafee, 2015). The Counsel also argued that there was no record of improper behaviors from Norwood or Sanchez during the game. Moreover, nobody reported the improper behaviors at the stadium.

Thus, the Counsel of LA Dodgers and Mccourt pointed out that Sanchez and Norwood were at fault for the unfortunate tragic incident, however, Stow was also comparatively at fault because he was intoxicated with alcohol of between 0.16 and 0.20 BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) at the time of the incident. The Counsel also provided the evidence of Stow provoking the assault by making a loud noise and make a derogatory comment at Norwood and Sanchez.

Stow Counsel countered the argument of the Counsel of Los Angeles Dodgers and Mccourt by pointing out it was true that Stow was drinking with his friend during the game, however, he was drinking responsibly and did not provoke an inappropriate behavior at the game. Injury Bryan Stow sustained injury as well as blunt force trauma to his head. The injury consisted of a brain contusion, a fractured skull, temporal hemorrhage, a bilateral frontal, and a subdural hematoma.

By consequence, Stow sustained a traumatic brain injury and was rushed to the nearest hospital. On April 1, 2011, the next day after the incident, the physician carried a partial craniotomy for Stow, which was later followed by the partial surgeries to replace the cranioplasty and removing an epidural mass. Stow is disabled permanently, live on social security benefits and receiving mental and physical therapy. In the case, Stow claimed that he suffered from the cognitive deficits that impaired his communication skills, motor skills, memory, retention and concentration.

Additionally, Stow claimed that the injury has affected his mobility that caused him using wheelchair sometimes. Stow's family member, and some friends described Stow as a gentle and respected individual. Stow claimed that he may never work again because of the injury and would not be able to do things he enjoyed. Moreover, he will require a constant home health care because of the injury. Based on the aforementioned problems, Stow sought $4.6 million for the past medical costs, nearly $32 million for life care plan and future medical costs.

Moreover, Stow sought for $2.6 million for the total lost earning. Stow also sought for damages that Jacqueline Kain, Stow's ex-wife suffered because the ex-wife was acting as a guardian for their children. Additionally, Tyler Stow and Tabitha Stow also brought a claim for a loss of consortium of the children, however, the case was dismissed. However, the Counsel of LA Dodgers and Mccourt contended that Stow future life care plan and medical costs were just $4.5 million. (Mcafee, 2015).

Verdict The jury in California found LA Dodger and Mccourt partially 25% responsible for the assault, where each of Sanchez and Norwood was 37.5% at fault. The court awarded Stow $17.9 million as the total damages that include $5.35 Million non-economic damage $12.56 Million economic damage. However, the court reduced the non-economic damage.