Skip to content

Appeals court reverses the Royals’ victory in the infamous hot dog-throwing lawsuit

Jan 15, 2013, 4:31 PM EDT

sluggerrr

Great moments in court of appeals rulings.

You may recall that a Kansas man sued the Kansas City Royals, alleging that a hot dog thrown by the team’s mascot — Sluggerrr — at a September 2009 game struck him in the eye and detached his retina. The case went to trial in 2011 and the Royals — and Sluggerr — won.  The plaintiff appealed. He just won the appeal.

Short version: the appeals court did not agree with the trial court’s instructions on assumption of the risk.  Presumably this means a retrial. Or, more likely, a settlement of some kind.

You can read the opinion, complete with factual background, here.

 

  1. mattyflex - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM

    NOOOOOOOOOOOO

    our payroll……

  2. Old Gator - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    I would have fired Sluggerr’s ass, tail and all, for having done something so stupid. I was surprised that the team won in the first place. Now it’s time to pay up, you cheap slugs.

  3. tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM

    I say you have a reasonable assumption of being hit with a hot dog anywhere you go.

  4. gerryb323 - Jan 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM

    WHAT?! It’s not reasonable to assume you’d be hit in the eye by a hot dog at a Royals game?

    I mean, minor league games are full of hot dog flinging mascots!

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:05 PM

      At a Royals game you have a better chance of being hit by a hot dog than a home run ball….

      At least in the bottom half of the innings.

  5. cur68 - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM

    Dang. Now I’m hungry….

  6. smoochytherhino - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM

    Sluggerr’s head-crown creeps me out. It’s weird.

    • rocketsteadman - Jan 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

  7. randygnyc - Jan 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM

    Um, I attend games with the reasonable expectation that I won’t have hot dog thrown at my eye. It’s not a batted/thrown ball or any other artifact of the game, as its being played. And still, the waiver to those claims can certainly be disputed.

  8. m3dman3 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:00 PM

    Slugerrr should sue him for being unmanly and not catching that hot dog in his mouth like a man is supposed too! Sue, sue, sue that’s all us greedy Americans do nowadays.

    • historiophiliac - Jan 15, 2013 at 7:45 PM

      You know that’s how the system is set up to work, right?

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 15, 2013 at 11:21 PM

        I find it interesting that the guy decrying the litigious nature of present day America also aligns manliness with one’s ability to deep-throat a hot dog.

        I wouldn’t have guessed that overlapping sgement of a Venn diagram.

  9. bricktop02 - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:05 PM

    Mom always said don’t throw hotdogs at the ballpark.

    • mrredlegz - Jan 15, 2013 at 9:55 PM

      He didn’t throw the hotdog at the ballpark. He threw it at that dude’s retina. Duh.

  10. skerney - Jan 15, 2013 at 6:05 PM

    Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.

  11. pike573 - Jan 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM

    They must have found that it was pre-existing. I feel bad for the guy regardless… But still hilarious

  12. deathmonkey41 - Jan 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

    – William Shakespeare.

    • professormaddog31 - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM

      Craig, rebuttal please…

      • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM

        If Shakespeare were alive today he’d change that to “kill all the blog commenters”

  13. huffdaddyco - Jan 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

    I think that one should have to pay for the service of having a retina detached while watching a Royals game.

  14. Tick - Jan 16, 2013 at 12:19 PM

    Can someone appeal the decision to design the mascot’s head like that?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Red Sox shopping Lester and Lackey
Top 10 MLB Player Searches