Man who broke leg in Lambeau Field parking lot settles suit

[HarveyWallbangers]

I have a dollar that says this dude was drunker than a skunk.

Man who broke leg in Lambeau Field parking lot settles suit out of court
By Mike Hoeft, Green Bay Press Gazette

A civil suit brought by an Appleton man who broke his leg in the Lambeau Field parking lot on the way to a Green Bay Packers playoff game two years ago has been settled out of court.

Andrew Douglas filed the suit in Brown County Circuit Court against the Packers, seeking compensation for the injury he suffered while dodging snowbanks before the game against the Minnesota Vikings on Jan. 9, 2005.

Douglas' lawyer, David Van Lieshout, declined comment Wednesday on the case.

Packers spokesman Aaron Popkey said the team was not allowed to discuss the matter.

According to documents filed in the case:

Douglas, 36, was walking to the Fleet Farm gate at Lambeau Field from a Ridge Road restaurant, using the sidewalk on the north side of Valley View Road, adjacent to the Lambeau Field parking lot.

As Douglas walked east, the sidewalk was blocked by a 6-foot-tall snow pile, prompting Douglas to step over the curbside snow piles and walk in the street toward the driveway leading into the parking lot.

Douglas stepped on the snow-covered, sloped edge of a driveway approach ramp, where he claims to have twisted his ankle and fallen to the ground. The suit indicates Douglas sustained a broken fibula and an ankle injury.

The suit alleges the Packers — by not clearing the snow piles — failed to keep their property safe for visitors.

In their earlier response to the suit, the Packers offered the defense that the injury was the byproduct of Douglas' own negligent acts and that he assumed risks when he walked on to the property.

The settlement canceled a jury trial set for Monday.

[esoxx]

I could see the Packers wanting to get this matter settled, based on the facts described. Probably not a good idea having a 6' high pile of snow obstructing a sidewalk.

[MJZiggy]

True, but can you imagine a Green Bay jury finding against the Packers? I'd be calling 'bias' before the case ever began.

[esoxx]

True, but can you imagine a Green Bay jury finding against the Packers?

Absolutely. Never a guarantee in front of a jury and the Packers realize this given their settlement proceeds in lieu of simply trying the case.

Actually, you'd be surprised to find that there are a good number of GB residents who are "anti-Packer". You may recall the sales tax vote was extremely close. The letters to the editor from local residents routinely bash the organization about one thing or the other. I don't understand it myself but there is an undercurrent of negativity from the locals towards the Packer organization.

All you'd need is a few of those on the jury. They would just love to stick it back to the Packers, probably largely due to the sales tax issue.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't say there's a good number, but there are some. I'd bet it's close to 2%.
:D

I don't know the situation. Maybe the Packers may or may not have been able to get that snow removed a timely fashion. I just know that if I fall on some ice or snow, I'm taking the friggin' blame. I wonder if the negligent acts on this guy's part is being drunker than a skunk.

[Partial]

Well the guy is obviously trying to get a handout, even though they are required to move the snow.

I would be pissed too though, if I hurt myself slipping because someone else didn't live up to their responsibility.

[Pacopete4]

sooo... everytime we slip or fall we file a lawsuit against someone?.. thats bullshit.. I wouldnt even think twice if it happened to me.. drunk or not.. i would think of myself as the dumbass who fell, not the dumbass who was gonna get money from the packers.. thats terrible.. watch where u are walking.. thats like those paper boys that get money for falling on ur property when they are bringing u your paper.. just terrible..

[CaliforniaCheez]

I've spent over a decade dealing with personal injury lawsuits.

The guy got his medical bills but more impotant his lawyer got paid off.

The guy slipped on snow/ice when on sidewalk not even on "Packer" property.

You'd be suprised how much the Packers paid "their" lawyers to defend the suit.

[falco]

the packers should have gotten idle_threat to come and debunk the lawsuit.

[MadtownPacker]

I would be pissed too though, if I hurt myself slipping because someone else didn't live up to their responsibility.Typical crybaby America right there. So should tall buildings have signs saying you will get hurt if you walk off them too?

If your too clumsy to watch out thats your fault. When clear negligence is found then OK but slippery conditions in snow should be expected.

For his own safety this chump should be banned from Lambeau for life so he doesnt get hurt again.

Then he can stay safe at home.

[LL2]

I would be pissed too though, if I hurt myself slipping because someone else didn't live up to their responsibility.Typical crybaby America right there. So should tall buildings have signs saying you will get hurt if you walk off them too?

If your too clumsy to watch out thats your fault. When clear negligence is found then OK but slippery conditions in snow should be expected.

For his own safety this chump should be banned from Lambeau for life so he doesnt get hurt again.

Then he can stay safe at home.

I couldn't agree more. Snow around Lambeau Field? Shouldn't that be expected from time to time? This is no different than the stupid greedy lady that sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot.

[Merlin]

I would be pissed too though, if I hurt myself slipping because someone else didn't live up to their responsibility.Typical crybaby America right there. So should tall buildings have signs saying you will get hurt if you walk off them too?

If your too clumsy to watch out thats your fault. When clear negligence is found then OK but slippery conditions in snow should be expected.

For his own safety this chump should be banned from Lambeau for life so he doesnt get hurt again.

Then he can stay safe at home.

I agree.

The only problem is that the law does hold you accountable for your property and making sure that it is clear of obstruction. I have taken an additional personal liability policy out just because of the ambulance chasers. There are more of them then you would think.

Some kids in my city went into their neighbors yard without permission to swim in their pool. One of the kids slipped and sprained his ankle and the parents sued. The court agreed that the neighbor was liable because even though the pool was surrounded by a fence and the door was latched that because they didn't lock it, they were negligent. This is despite the fact that these kids didn't have permission to be on the property. The parents of these kids are the ones with the problem. They just taught another generation that you can do whatever you want to and there are no consequences and you even get some cash for being stupid!

[Travbrew]

I would be pissed too though, if I hurt myself slipping because someone else didn't live up to their responsibility.Typical crybaby America right there. So should tall buildings have signs saying you will get hurt if you walk off them too?

If your too clumsy to watch out thats your fault. When clear negligence is found then OK but slippery conditions in snow should be expected.

For his own safety this chump should be banned from Lambeau for life so he doesnt get hurt again.

Then he can stay safe at home.

I agree.

The only problem is that the law does hold you accountable for your property and making sure that it is clear of obstruction. I have taken an additional personal liability policy out just because of the ambulance chasers. There are more of them then you would think.

Some kids in my city went into their neighbors yard without permission to swim in their pool. One of the kids slipped and sprained his ankle and the parents sued. The court agreed that the neighbor was liable because even though the pool was surrounded by a fence and the door was latched that because they didn't lock it, they were negligent. This is despite the fact that these kids didn't have permission to be on the property. The parents of these kids are the ones with the problem. They just taught another generation that you can do whatever you want to and there are no consequences and you even get some cash for being stupid!

DAMN!! That sucks. No offense to anyone, but lawyers (liars) are destroying this country IMHO. Wouldn't that make you want to kick the intestines out of the asshole who sued you? Oh yeah, that bitch would sue you too. What bunch of horseshit.

[esoxx]

I wouldn't say there's a good number, but there are some. I'd bet it's close to 2%.
:D



The "no" vote on the stadium tax was around 46%. I consider that percentage to be anti-Packer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The "no" vote on the stadium tax was around 46%. I consider that percentage to be anti-Packer.

I don't agree at all. I've met people who voted no to the tax at Packer games. I wouldn't consider most of them anti-Packers. They just either wanted it done differently (e.g. didn't want most of the finances set on their table) or felt like Lambeau would be desecrated by the refurbishment.

[Joemailman]

Seems to me that the Packers, considering how much money they take in, ought to be able to hire someone to get their snow removed. If they are required by a city ordinance to keep sidewalks adjacent to their property cleared of snow, then they open themselves up to lawsuits if they fail to do so. I have no way of knowing if the guy filing the suit did anything negligent. It would appear, however, that the Packers were.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You sound like a lawyer or a lefty. No personal responsibility. I could careless if the Packers were negligent. He friggin' fell on some snow and ice. Apparently, others didn't have the same problem. Just this deadbeat. I still would like to know if his negligent acts were him being drunker than a skunk.

You say the Packers were negligent. You don't know that. They settled out of court. (Perhaps at the risk of losing even more money in a trial.) The Packers claimed the guy slipped because of his own negligence. We don't know if that was the case or not either--because the case was settled out of court.

[esoxx]

The "no" vote on the stadium tax was around 46%. I consider that percentage to be anti-Packer.

I don't agree at all. I've met people who voted no to the tax at Packer games. I wouldn't consider most of them anti-Packers. They just either wanted it done differently (e.g. didn't want most of the finances set on their table) or felt like Lambeau would be desecrated by the refurbishment.

Perhaps "anti-Packer" is a bit strong. I'm sure many who like the Packers did vote "no" but to me that's also being hypocritcal. They should have backed the Pack with their "yes" vote and tax money. It's easy to claim being a big Packer fan but when push comes to shove they want someone else to shoulder the bill. I put my money where my mouth was and voted yes even though I'm like the next guy who doesn't like to see their taxes being raised.

And for those that voted "no" simply b/c it would somehow desecrate Lambeau...I guess those people were more in favor of seeing the franchise greatly wounded which would have likely happened if the referendum had failed. Pretty silly logic on their part and extremely short-sighted.

Bottom line is a lot of fans talk a big game but when it's their moment to step up they scatter and throw out excuses why they can't. You're either in or you're out as far as I'm concerned.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't disagree with that. I don't know that some of those residents know how much some of us from outside of the city care for the Packers. I have a piece of paper that cost me $200 to prove my love.
:D

[esoxx]

As long as you didn't plunk down $30 for a cheesehead it's all good. That's where I draw the line! :P

[the_idle_threat]

the packers should have gotten idle_threat to come and debunk the lawsuit.

:lol: Doesn't look like it was necessary.

[Joemailman]

You sound like a lawyer or a lefty. No personal responsibility. I could careless if the Packers were negligent. He friggin' fell on some snow and ice. Apparently, others didn't have the same problem. Just this deadbeat. I still would like to know if his negligent acts were him being drunker than a skunk.

You say the Packers were negligent. You don't know that. They settled out of court. (Perhaps at the risk of losing even more money in a trial.) The Packers claimed the guy slipped because of his own negligence. We don't know if that was the case or not either--because the case was settled out of court.

I don't consider myself to be a lefty, and I'm sure as heck not a lawyer. However, I do think most lawyer bashing I hear is pretty stupid. People like to bash lawyers until they need one. I was at the game, and don't recall having to avoid any huge snow piles. Therefore, if there was a 6 foot high pile of snow on a sidewalk adjacent to Packer property, that was a man-made hazard. It didn't just happen. But hey, let's all just rush to the aid of corporations and say to hell with ordinary people who seek their day in court. Those people were just probably drunk, right Harv?

[CaliforniaCheez]

The courts really favor the stupid, the clumsy, and the worthless. The more problems you have or the worse loser you are the more it is other people's responsibility to look out for you.

If you want to see the ridiculous go to

http://www.overlawyered.com/

They find the most outragious suits across the country.