Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by pondo ROCKS on Feb 21, 2012 22:08:48 GMT -5
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Fans who were killed and injured when stage rigging and sound equipment collapsed onto them as they awaited a Sugarland concert at the Indiana State Fair failed to take steps to ensure their own safety and are at least in part to blame for their injuries, the country duo's attorneys said.
The statement, part of a Feb. 16 response to a civil suit filed by survivors and families of some of those killed, comes in sharp contrast to earlier statements by lead singer Jennifer Nettles and appears to be an attempt to cast blame elsewhere.
Calling the powerful winds that toppled the stage on Aug. 13 an "act of God," Sugarland's attorneys said fair officials and Mid-America Sound Corp. were responsible for the stage setup, and that the fans voluntarily assumed risk by attending the show.
"Some or all of the plaintiffs' claimed injuries resulted from their own fault," according to the band's response. Sugarland attorney James H. Milstone did not immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.
Seven people died and 58 were injured in the crush beneath the metal rigging and concert sound equipment.
Wow...Class Act their Sugarland. Why, OBVIOUSLY it is the fans fault for SHOWING UP at one of your shows ??? . If I was a fan of yours, this would NEVER be a problem again.
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
These are just excerpts taken directly out of a pretty standard Answer to a civil Complaint (alleging defenses such as Act of God, comparative fault, etc.), and distorted by a media outlet. Did you expect Sugarland's attorneys to admit liability in the face of what I would assume is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit? Irresponsible journalism, especially the headline that Sugarland is blaming the fans.
Yeah, but on the other side of the argument. How is a storm that suddenly blew in and collapsed a stage ANYONE'S fault? That was an act of nature!
Damn, nothing is ever an accident anymore and it seems NO ONE wants to take any personal responsibilty anymore! EVERYTHING has to be someone's fault nowdays, don't it?
I don't see any problem here. Sounds like they are defending themselves from huge lawsuits for something that unless I'm missing something I have no idea how they could be to blame for this incident.
I don't see any problem here. Sounds like they are defending themselves from huge lawsuits for something that unless I'm missing something I have no idea how they could be to blame for this incident.
Yeah, but on the other side of the argument. How is a storm that suddenly blew in and collapsed a stage ANYONE'S fault? That was an act of nature!
Damn, nothing is ever an accident anymore and it seems NO ONE wants to take any personal responsibilty anymore! EVERYTHING has to be someone's fault nowdays, don't it?
Because if you're playing an outdoor show, you need to be mindful of potential weather conditions and hazards and need to be prepared accordingly. Yes, the winds were an "act of God," but if it can be shown that the band/promoters/whoever could have easily avoided it had they used stronger materials, or taken notice of the prevailing conditions, or any other steps within reason, they could/should be held liabile.
And yeah, the defense that their attorneys gave is an absolutely standard special defense filed in response to a complaint. Pretty much anytime you sue anyone for personal injury, you're going to get the defense that you contributed to that injury via your own negligence.
I think it was just a festival gig, I would think all liability would be on the promoter/venue. Of course I am not a lawyer, so that opinion is worth it's weight in gold.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Feb 22, 2012 11:13:50 GMT -5
Here's a more detailed report:
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Attorneys for country duo Sugarland said concertgoers were at least partly to blame for injuries suffered in a stage collapse, drawing a sharp reaction from fans Tuesday and prompting the band's manager to issue a statement criticizing the finger-pointing.
Members of the band expressed shock and sadness after last summer's stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair killed seven people and injured dozens more.
But in their response to a civil lawsuit, the band's attorneys said injured fans "failed to exercise due care for their own safety" and contended some or all of their injuries "resulted from their own fault."
The comments outraged Haley Waggoner of Cincinnati, who was in the front row with her twin sister when the collapse happened and suffered a concussion that caused headaches and other problems for weeks.
"It disgusts me," said Waggoner, who has attended eight or nine Sugarland shows. "Through this whole process, I don't feel like the band cares that much about fans."
The band's attorneys also called the high winds that toppled the stage rigging an "act of God" and denied the band had any responsibility for the stage construction or to warn fans.
Waggoner said while the band couldn't control the weather and didn't build the stage, she believes Sugarland could have done more to warn concertgoers of the impending danger. She said she'll never see them live again.
"If they don't believe in us for something that isn't our fault, then I don't want to support them," she said.
Indianapolis attorney Carl Brizzi, who is representing the widow of Glenn Goodrich, a security guard killed in the collapse, said he was outraged that the band tried to distance itself from the tragedy.
"Sugarland has engaged in a public relations campaign to put the best light on its role in the avoidable tragedy," Brizzi said in a statement. "And this spin-doctoring of Sugarland's role in the case is both offensive and outlandish."
Sugarland attorney James H. Milstone would not elaborate Tuesday on the response to the civil lawsuit. But the band's manager issued a statement in which the due tried to distance themselves from the claims in court documents.
"Sadly when a tragedy occurs, people want to point fingers and try to sensationalize the disaster," Sugarland said in a statement Gail Gellman issued to The Associated Press. "The single most important thing to Sugarland are their fans. Their support and love over the past nine years has been unmatched. For anyone to think otherwise is completely devastating to them."
Another court document, however, casts doubt on the band's claim that its fans come first. In a Jan. 16 deposition on a lawsuit against the company that built the stage rigging, Indiana State Fair Commission Executive Director Cindy Hoye testified that Sugarland resisted delaying the start of the concert despite threatening weather. Hoye said the band expressed concerns about how a delay would affect the time lead singer Jennifer Nettles needed to warm up and complicate the band's travel to its next show.
Sugarland tour manager Hellen Rollens told IOSHA investigators that there was no discussion of delaying the show.
The band's legal response has clearly been designed to shift blame away from the band and back to fair officials, the company that erected the stage rigging and others. An Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration Investigation cited the fair, Mid-America Sound Corp. and the stagehands' union for violations in connections with the deaths of Goodrich and Nathan Byrd, a stagehand killed when the rigging collapsed.
Two other investigations examining the engineering of the structure and the state's response are pending.
The state has already paid out $5 million, the maximum allowed under Indiana law, to victims and their families. State lawmakers are considering adding another $5 million to $10 million to that to cover medical bills for those who suffered long-term injuries, but even that wouldn't be enough to cover future medical costs for the most seriously injured.
That makes Sugarland a natural focus for litigation.
It's common for bands to be named in lawsuits after injuries or deaths at a show. For example, families of the dead and injured filed 33 lawsuits against The Who after a 1979 stampede in Cincinnati. The Who settled out of court for a total of $2.1 million, plus an undisclosed sum for the family of one victim.
But one attorney involved in the Sugarland lawsuit said the band's response was strange.
"It's unusual to put the blame on victims," South Bend attorney Jeff Stesiak said Tuesday. "The concert wasn't canceled and they weren't told to leave. I can't imagine what the victims did to be at fault."
He disputed the Sugarland attorney's claim that an "open and obvious danger" existed before the collapse.
"An open and obvious danger is more like walking along a road and seeing a downed power line and walking over it anyway. The storm wasn't like that," Stesiak said.
The blame game isn't likely to end soon, even as lawmakers and fair officials work to prevent future incidents. A plan to require inspections of all large, temporary outdoor stages is advancing through the Legislature. And fair officials have moved all of this year's concerts indoors.
Ultimately, a jury may decide where fault lies. Sugarland's attorneys have requested a jury trial in the civil lawsuit.
Tina Williams of Indianapolis, who attended the concert, said there's plenty of blame to go around.
"Everyone has a little bit of ownership," Williams said. "Nobody can predict the weather. It was something that happened. I'm not upset with Sugarland."
Yes, the winds were an "act of God," but if it can be shown that the band/promoters/whoever could have easily avoided it had they used stronger materials, or taken notice of the prevailing conditions, or any other steps within reason, they could/should be held liabile.
See the report that I just posted. The festival people are claiming that they wanted to delay the show but Sugarland said no.
Being an employee of the construction industry, if I had to fancy a guess, I'd say this was 99% the fault of the rigging company.
People half-ass it all the time and try to take shortcuts because these companies always win the jobs by low-bidding the ever-loving crap out of the job. To make up for their low bid, they cut corners.
It's sad, but it's becomes standard practice in most areas (NYC not being one of them since it's the most ridiculously regulated city, construction-wise, in the world). I don't know any real details, but judging by the way things happened, I'd say someone wasn't doing the job they were hired to do, and just tried to "get it done."
Either way, fans should not be suing the performers, and the performers should not blast fans for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" or something along those lines.
I did read that the band declined to postpone the show twice. Now, who knows if it was asked or suggested to them or their management. Could have just been thrown out there as an option a couple of times. Hard to say. But they declined twice over concerns of making it on time to their next show in Iowa.
These are just excerpts taken directly out of a pretty standard Answer to a civil Complaint (alleging defenses such as Act of God, comparative fault, etc.), and distorted by a media outlet. Did you expect Sugarland's attorneys to admit liability in the face of what I would assume is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit? Irresponsible journalism, especially the headline that Sugarland is blaming the fans.
Did you not see where Sugarland blamed the fans for the collapse? How can a group "blame" the PEOPLE coming to see them? I mean, yes, I think Sugarland is terrible but I do not want anything bad to happen to the people who do happen to want to see them.
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
These are just excerpts taken directly out of a pretty standard Answer to a civil Complaint (alleging defenses such as Act of God, comparative fault, etc.), and distorted by a media outlet. Did you expect Sugarland's attorneys to admit liability in the face of what I would assume is a multi-million-dollar lawsuit? Irresponsible journalism, especially the headline that Sugarland is blaming the fans.
Did you not see where Sugarland blamed the fans for the collapse? How can a group "blame" the PEOPLE coming to see them? I mean, yes, I think Sugarland is terrible but I do not want anything bad to happen to the people who do happen to want to see them.
Post by pondo ROCKS on Feb 23, 2012 13:25:16 GMT -5
But in their response to a civil lawsuit, the band's attorneys said injured fans "failed to exercise due care for their own safety" and contended some or all of their injuries "resulted from their own fault."
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
But in their response to a civil lawsuit, the band's attorneys said injured fans "failed to exercise due care for their own safety" and contended some or all of their injuries "resulted from their own fault."
Yeah I sighed too
I was sighing at your inability to comprehend my response. These quotes are lifted directly from the filed response to the complaint filed in the suit, not from a press conference with the attorneys. It is absolutely standard, common practice, meat and potatoes to raise the defense of comparative fault in a personal injury/wrongful death suit against you. If they do not raise this defense it in this response, then they forever waive it. The attorneys for Sugarland are not going to waive a common defense in the face of a multi-million dollar lawsuit simply to prevent hurt feelings. Neglecting to raise this defense (especially for that reason) would probably constitute an act of legal malpractice.
This is not anything to be offended or outraged about. As Juggs said, it will eventually settle, everyone will get their monies, and the attorneys for Sugarland will sleep well knowing they gave it their best shot.
Obviously it is the fault of whoever jerry-rigged the stage together. The band does need to take some responsibility for playing such shitty music that god would make a storm like that to shut them up.
