The rock band Kiss is being sued by a security guard who claims he slipped and fell when the band's crew sprayed water and confetti on the stage in a "foolish and reckless manner."
Timothy Funk was working security at a Kiss concert in Noblesville, Indiana, in 2012 when the accident occurred, reports Ultimate Classic Rock. Funk claims the combination of water and confetti that accumulated on the stage during the band's closing song created a "slippery, waxy, and glassy" surface causing Funk to fall and injure himself.
What will Funk need to show in court to succeed in his case?
Slip and Fall Injuries: Who's Responsible?
Personal injury cases in which a person was injured by a trip or fall on someone else's property are typically known as slip-and-fall injuries. Slip-and-fall cases usually name the property owner or the person in possession of the property on which the injury took place as being responsible for creating the dangerous condition that caused the injury.
In this case, in addition to naming Kiss co-founder Gene Simmons and his associated company, Funk's lawsuit also names concert promoter Live Nation as a defendant. As the parties in possession of the property on the night in question, the defendants may be responsible for injuries that occurred on the property under the theory of premises liability.
In order to prevail, Funk would also have to show that his injuries were caused by one or more of the defendants. Generally, a defendant is at fault in a slip and fall case if they had a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions but failed to take reasonable steps to do so. This includes creating a dangerous condition, or unreasonably failing to recognize or repair a dangerous condition.
However, Funk's own potential fault in causing his own injuries will also likely be taken into consideration. In most states, under the rule of comparative negligence, the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's injuries is offset by the amount of the plaintiff's own negligence in causing his own injuries.
Indiana follows a modified comparative fault approach. Under Indiana law, if a plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault for his own injuries, then he cannot recover.