Comments on: Bar wasn’t safe for her to dance on

By: Didn’t know it was unsafe to dance on bar, cont’d

Didn’t know it was unsafe to dance on bar, cont’d — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:49:59 +0000

[…] on a bar and sued the bar owners. We’ve covered previous dancing-on-bar suits from Illinois here and […]

By: Slips while dancing on bar, complaint cites lack of handrail

Slips while dancing on bar, complaint cites lack of handrail — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:42:04 +0000

[…] Complainant Rory Beer — yes, her real name, though she used to be known as Rory Roberts — was dancing on the bar at Bar Chicago, a Division Street nightspot, when she fell off, with what her suit says are permanent injuries to her foot and ankle. “The lawsuit claims that Bar Chicago encourages patrons to dance on the bar, but doesn’t warn people of slippery surfaces or provide handrails, ‘cushioned flooring’ or ’safety nets.’” (Mark J. Konkol, “Dancer slips, now she wants bar to pay”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 1; Chicagoist). We covered another bar-wasn’t-safe-for-her-to-dance-on suit, also from Illinois, last year. […]

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:11:18 +0000

markm,

At least in Bork’s case, the podium was set up for speaking from, and he was the speaker… that is, the object he was to climb was specifically purposed for being stood on and spoken from. The bar was for eating, drinking, and possibly leaning on.

Not that I agree with Bork, either, but his case almost has merit (though the numbers are crazy). Hers seems to lack it entirely (though it’s nice to see semi-reasonable numbers).

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:13:49 +0000

So she wasn’t doing the ‘safety dance’, then?

By: markm

markm — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:16:15 +0000

I don’t imagine the bar had a safety rail, either. Under any sane system of torts, when an adult voluntarily subjects herself to a hazard in plain sight, she assumes the risk. Under our system….

Of course, the non-Justice Bork is suing under the same theory – he hurt himself trying to climb up on a stage without steps or a ladder, taking on a hazard that was in plain sight, and apparently unlike her, he’s suing everyone remotely connected to the case for millions.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:29:30 +0000

You’ve GOT to be poopin’ me on this. This is one for the hall o’ fame.

Duty to not render one’s self susceptible to the forces of Darwinism. That might need to be explored as a new legal theory.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:58:04 +0000

*IF* they actually do encourage patrons to dance on the bar, this case is not necessarily ridiculous.

Probably still a stretch (is they really do encourage it, how many other pople have done so without injury?), but not obscene. Oh, and the sought amount is only 5 digits? Wow… sadly, that’s refreshing! I’m used to seing 7+ digits in just about everything…

By: Dick

Dick — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:03:44 +0000

Frivolous = A case where I don’t think I can make any money.