A couple has sued the Chicago White Sox, claiming the team had a duty to protect them when they were attacked last July in the parking lot of U.S. Cellular Field.
Kenneth and Michelle Budka filed the lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court.
The incident occurred after a White Sox game on July 19, 2014. The plaintiffs were returning to their car in Lot #277 when they came upon three men urinating on their vehicle, according to the complaint.
Kenneth Budka approached the men, hoping to stop them. But he, along with Michelle Budka, were “violently attacked, beaten, punched and kicked” by the men, who were also named as defendants in the law suit. This left the plaintiffs with “serious, painful, and permanent injuries and damages, medical treatment, medical bills, and lost wages.”
After alleging battery in Count I, the plaintiffs alleged negligence against the White Sox and the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority in Count II.
Specifically, they charged that the defendants were “legally obligated to provide reasonable and safe security and supervision of the parking lots … at U.S. Cellular Field, for the purposes of ensuring that White Sox customers, including plaintiffs, would be reasonably safe and secure before and after attending baseball games.”
Beyond that “duty,” the defendants “were negligent, culpable and\or otherwise liable by committing the following acts and/or omissions:
“Failed to provide reasonably frequent and thorough supervision of Lot #277 in order to ensure physical attacks committed against White Sox customers, as set forth herein above, would be prevented and/or stopped;
“Failed to provide reasonably trained security to prevent and/or stop physical attacks on White Sox customers, such as those committed against plaintiffs as set forth above;
“Failed to provide a reasonable number of properly trained security personnel who were capable and prepared to prevent and/or stop physical attacks on White Sox customers, such as those committed against plaintiffs as set forth above;
“Failed to ensure that Lot #277 was properly supervised in order to prevent and/or stop physical attacks on White Sox customers, such as those committed against plaintiffs as set forth above;
“Failed to intervene and/or stop, once started, the attack on plaintiffs, as set forth above, in order to lessen the nature and extent of injuries and damages incurred by plaintiffs; and
“Were otherwise careless or negligent.”
The plaintiffs are seeking at least $100,000 in damages.
Gil Fried, a sports law professor at the University of New Haven and a key expert witness in the Stow case, suggested to Sport Litigation Alert that the plaintiffs have a high bar to clear.
“It is easy to allege something, but more difficult to prove,” he said. “They would have to show that the personnel were not properly trained, that the team/stadium knew about problems/issues in the parking lot and did nothing to prevent or minimize that risk, that there weren’t enough security personnel in the parking lot, that security was not properly monitoring the parking lot, etc. … .
“The lessons learned from Stow hopefully resonated with every team and stadium/arena to more vigilantly monitor their various facilities (both inside and outside the stands).”
He added that it would be “very interesting to see how the uptick in assaults and murders in Chicago have played into the team’s/stadium’s security efforts. The uptick in crime would send a very strong signal that a team needs to be more vigilant as the stadium would not be immune from similar criminal concerns.
“Furthermore, while screening can stop weapons from coming into the facility, once folks go back to their cars they can have guns or other weapons readily available. That could be the cautionary tale for many facilities. The sense of safety someone might have when entering the facility should not be lost before they get into the facility or when they immediately leave the facility. Often the emphasis is placed on what occurs inside the facility, but it is just as important to critically analyze risk and safety issues just outside the facility.”
Returning to the case at hand, Professor Fried noted that “the key that will need to be examined is data and what incidents and other data can show whether the team/stadium was effectively managing safety in the parking lot. Incident management programs at most facilities should be considered the best security tool for analyzing what is occurring in and around a facility. Facilities need to make sure that personnel are properly trained in reporting and analyzing data to make sure decisions can be based on the best possible data.”
