Billy Elliot being sued for $4 million by injured theatre goers- Page 2

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 6:28pm

Didn't something else fall on an audience member at Gypsy as well during previews? I don't think it was off the stage, but still. A vent cover or something?

[finishmyhat]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 6:36pm

Broadway is meant represent the highest quality of theater in the country.

It should be expected that the dancers in Billy Elliot be good enough to not mess up the choreography and put the audience at risk. Yes, these ladies have the right to sue.

Billy Elliot has a great track record so I doubt it'll harm the production much, but this just goes to show that competent people are hired for these shows.

Posted: 2/15/11 at 8:34pm

i'm surprised so many people think this lawsuit is frivolous. The bottom line is that it is very reasonable for an audience member to expect to leave a show without permanent facial scars. If an audience member suffers such scars I don't think "oh well, accidents happen" is a fair response.

[wdwfreak]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 8:50pm

Based upon the Tony performance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1RB_T85nQk

I perfectly see a red crate at around the 2:12 mark.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 9:34pm

"oh well, accidents happen"

No one said that.

Make sure when you quote someone, you do it properly.

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 9:43pm

You said: "Well, duh, of course not. But to say the producers were negligent is asinine. Accidents happen. If you can’t deal with that, then go live under a rock."

Are you seriously making the claim that you were misquoted because spidernight added the "oh well"? Make sure when you're splitting hairs, you do it properly.

[MyLife]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 11:21pm

I was hit with the squeegee from RENT one performance and was "permanently scarred" by it. It's a light scar, but it's defnitely there on my cheek.

Did I sue? No. Though they gave me a signed poster of the cast probably so that I didn't sue. All I wanted was to keep the squeegee but they "needed it for the evening performance"

[LegallyBroadway2]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 11:23pm

bahaha caution props used. yes.

speaking of confetti cannons, at shrek a thick (like 3-4 inches) stack of the confetti didn't fall apart and hit my face directly, like a freaking bullet. It killed. I thought I was shot. Ouch for days. Bruise.

No one heard my loud vocal reaction, as cheering saturated the house.

I kept the stack of confetti.

I lost it. :/

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 11:38pm

I love how they are blaming the dangerous choreography, is the choreographer mentioned in the suit?

[lillebjorn]

Posted: 2/15/11 at 11:56pm

Having read the NY Post article which quotes the ladies lawyer, the lawsuit strikes me as opportunistic. The injuries were either obvious - the scar/gash - or were diagnosed at the hospital either that night or soon after and yet the lawsuit has taken this long to appear. Yes, of course they have the right to sue - we all do in this overly-litigious society of ours in which a lawsuit has become a way to cash in rather than be a remedy to an ill - but to wait this length of time after the event is was makes the suit seem more frivolous and opportunistic.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 1:51am

When I saw Hugh Jackman last year in A STEADY RAIN, I got an erection that lasted for 14 hours. It was very painful but did I sue? Of course not. It's all part of live theatre, these things just happen.

[sking]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 2:34am

Yes they have the right to sue. Yes they have the right to get medical and other damages...but 4 MILLION? That had better be a UGLY scar and the one with the concussion better still be having headachs...seriously.May I remind the people supporting the litigants all the info we have is from their lawyer and they would NEVER slant the story in their favor would they? lol
Obviously settelment talks didnt go well for them and with spiderman news they thought that now was the time to play hardball, personally if they see more then medical costs plus 50 k or so they made off good.Might be an old pic but i found a pic of the scared one...looked for the lightning bolt didnt find it:)

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 6:54am

It's the Great American Way ... sue for $4 million, settle out of court for $1.5 million, pay off the lawyers a third, return home with $1 million, retire and live the good life.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 7:59am

That Billy Elliot is being sued for $4 million, does NOT mean these women have been AWARDED $4 million by a judge and jury. It just means these two women found a greedy publicity-whore with a law degree who was willing to play Billy Flynn for them.

Whether or not they received "permanent injuries" is not a given. It is up to a jury to decide.

It's more likely that this will be deemed a "nuisance lawsuit" by a judge and be dismissed.

I would think there's more of a chance that Jordan Catalano's lawsuit would prevail in court than this one has.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 8:50am

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:02am

Here's a basic rundown on the theory of punitive damages (as explained by a member on another site). Please note I am not arguing here as whether this lawsuit is warranted or not, that's for a judge/jury to decide.

The 4 million dollars is meant to be punitive, not proportionate. It actually makes a good deal of sense as a legal principle.

Let's say you get injured while riding a rollercoaster, and the amusement park is definitely liable. You have $15 000 in medical bills, $20 000 in lost wages due to medical treatment and convalescence, and you expect to spend $5000 on the lawsuit. So you sue for $40 000, right?

Okay, fine--but the amusement park is earning more than a million a week in profit. Your $40 000 award will barely make a dent in that $50 000 000+ annual take. When courts award punitive damages, they're saying that the defendant needs to feel the full force and impact of the lawsuit: the judgment isn't meant to be a slap on the wrist, it's meant to be a serious charge of major wrongdoing which must not ignored. Beefing up the award has been a good way of sending that message. We might also consider that, in these situations, it is likely that other people were also exposed to potential injury: you just had the misfortune of being the one actually injured. In this case, the problem isn't the injury itself: the problem is the carelessness on the part of the defendant which led to your injury, and may have led to others. As such, those potential injuries get rolled into your lawsuit, since identifying every potential victim and including them in the mix would be an onerous and in many cases impossible process.

That's where you get 4 million in damages base on $40 000 in actual injuries. It's about sending a message, not necessarily about the actual damages.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:03am

When I saw Phantom I sat in the box seats. During intermission, a heavy round piece of glass fell from above me and landed at my feet. I assume from the spotlight. At that height and weight, had it hit me in the head it would have done some damage. How much...who knows? Would I have sued? HELL YES. For all of you who are stating how dare they sue...are so FULL of it. Many of you cry cry and stomp your feet, when you don't receive your student rush ticket. So I imagine if you were in any type of the same situation...you would do the same thing.

Updated On: 2/16/11 at 09:03 AM

[ArtMan]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:03am

When I saw Phantom I sat in the box seats. During intermission, a heavy round piece of glass fell from above me and landed at my feet. I assume from the spotlight. At that height and weight, had it hit me in the head it would have done some damage. How much...who knows? Would I have sued? HELL YES. For all of you who are stating how dare they sue...are so FULL of it. Many of you cry cry and stomp your feet, when you don't receive your student rush ticket. So I imagine if you were in any type of the same situation...you would do the same thing.
Updated On: 2/16/11 at 09:03 AM

[JRybka]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:44am

ArtMan... I think there is a big difference between an actors mistake and a piece of the house falling around you.

An actor onstage is giving his or her all for the paying audience sometimes things happen. A Shoe flying off in Legally Blond, A Hat flying off the stage in Phantom (when we saw it) -- it happens. You are seeing LIVE theater. What next? Will they have to put plexiglass in between the actors and the audience. If that is the case then stay home and watch tv.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 9:58am

I realize that. But when it was mentioned about a confetti machine incident whether in jest or real...the subject opened to become getting hurt while attending a broadway production, not just by the actor's mistakes.

[lillebjorn]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 10:08am

Artman - don't be 'daft.' Of course you/we would sue. It's the fact that it took the ladies and their lawyer this long to sue that gives the IMPRESSION of an opportunistic lawsuit.
If part of their goal is to stop "major wrongdoing" (to quote AEA AGMA SM's great post) then, again, they've left it a long time. The quotes in the Post seem to indicate Wrongdoing is what their going for...
"The women's suit charges the show's producers, Billy Broadway and NBC Universal, with "general negligence" for "arranging a hazardous and dangerous choreography" and "failing to give . . . any notice or warning" to the audience."

It would be interesting to find out what the producers did for the ladies by way of recompense. Again, to go by the Post article, the lawyer wasn't saying that the original compensation offered was inadequate. So why sue now?

[bk]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 10:44am

Because ever since that ridiculous McDonald's lawsuit, this is what people do. Does one of these women have a permanent scar? Who knows? Is it a tiny little thing or a big thing. A jury will decide that. And does the second woman have a permanent scar? If not, why is she suing? Someone here called it correctly - a publicity seeking lawyer who is doing this pro-bono.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 1:16pm

"Are you seriously making the claim that you were misquoted because spidernight added the "oh well"?"

Yes.

Because if you are going to quote someone, you need to get it right.

Accidents happen every day. If you don't like that, then stay at home. It's not like this was a regular occurrence with the show. It happened once.

The only thing they should have covered is medical expenses, but to ask for millions of dollars is just pathetic.



And, I hate it when people mention "that ridiculous McDonald's lawsuit" because they obvioulsy have no clue as to what happened to the old lady who got burned. She had to have skin grafts because the coffee WAS too hot.


FACTS MUST SUCK

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 2:05pm

Then I suggest you go up a few posts and read AEA AGMA SM's excellent description of how they arrived at the $4 million mark. That's how it works in the Grown-up World, like it or not.

And how you can defend the McDonald's verdict with facts while at the same time decry this situation before you know them is beyond me, but I guess that's part of the hypocrisy that pollutes the board.

[Mamie]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 2:07pm

I saw Kiss Me Kate in June, 2001 and during "I Hate Men", Marin Mazzie hurled a tankard across the stage and right into the chest of a man sitting in the first row, house left. He laughed hysterically (along with the rest of the audience), stood up and threw it right back at her. Should I assume that with the assistance of a couple of really "good" lawyers, they can now sue each other? (Some stress-induced anxiety syndrome perhaps?)

If these ladies had been hurt at "Shrek the Musical" or a less successful (financially) musical, would we be hearing about a 4 million dollar suit today?