As predicted, lawsuits have surfaced in the wake of ticketed fans being denied entry into Hard Rock Stadium for last Sunday’s Copa América final between Argentina and Colombia.
Earlier this week, several complaints were filed in a Miami-Dade County trial court, with the stadium and CONMEBOL named as defendants. The Athletic reported on the complaints, copies of which Sportico has obtained.
Miami-Dade resident Isabel Quintero is one of the plaintiffs, all of whom seek jury trials. Quintero says she had a ticket to attend the match but was denied entry. She allegedly suffered “severe injuries” upon being “pushed, trampled and slammed” amid the chaos. The stadium shut down entry after people without tickets overcame security measures to gain entry to the stadium, with some even using vents to illegally trespass. Some ticket holders were able to enter only to see trespassers sitting in their seats.
Quintero contends the “massive crowd and unruly guests” were “foreseeable and preventable” risks to ticket holders. Tickets prices to the match, which might be global star Lionel Messi’s last game for Argentina, surged in the preceding days as interest heightened. Quintero maintains the defendants exhibited a “complete lack of training, preparation, and/or safety protocol” in handling a marquee match where over 65,000 tickets were sold.
To that end, Quintero’s lawsuit alleges the stadium and CONMEBOL were negligent. Businesses who invite the public onto their property must use reasonable care to ensure a safe and secure environment, which Quintero notes includes prevention of reasonably foreseeable “violent actions from third parties.” Quintero faults the defendants for allegedly failing to have enough security present to handle the rush and to visibly deter crime.
The complaint also suggests the security who were present might not have spoken Spanish, which Quintero contends is unacceptable given the match was between teams from two Spanish-speaking countries. “Failure to hire and properly train bilingual and/or Spanish speaking staff and security guards” is stressed in the complaint.
Quintero seeks more than $100,000 in damages reflecting alleged bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability, permanent bodily disfigurement, permanent scarring, mental anguish, medical expenses, lost wages and other harms.
Jason Manco of Flushing, N,Y., is another plaintiff. He’s suing the stadium in what he hopes becomes certified as a class action on behalf of everyone who bought a ticket and was denied entry—a group Manco estimates at around 7,000 people. Manco says he bought two tickets for $5,486.94 but was denied entry. He accuses the stadium of negligence and says it owes “millions of dollars” to the class for the money they spent, the loss of the value of attending the big match and emotional distress.
Jacqueline Martinez, a Miami-Dade resident, is suing as well, with a complaint lodged against the stadium and CONMEBOL. Martinez was denied entry despite having a ticket. Her complaint accuses the defendants of violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in allegedly “unconscionable,” “unfair” and “deceptive acts and practices while conducting commerce. Martinez also claims the stadium and CONMEBOL unjustly retained economic benefits. She seeks over $100,000 in damages for monetary loss, emotional distress and other damages.
These are just a sampling of what could become an avalanche of lawsuits brought by aggrieved ticket holders. These complaints, however, will face several likely legal defenses.
The tickets themselves could prove crucial. Tickets to sporting and entertainment events often include language, albeit in small font and seldom read, that limits and in some instances precludes lawsuits by ticket holders.
Potential clauses might (1) require ticket holders to mediate and/or arbitrate–which would be conducted outside of public viewing and might require them to pay fees–before they can sue; (2) prohibit class actions; and (3) limit damages to the price of a ticket, thus precluding recovery for additional costs or harms. Whether the tickets purchased by the plaintiffs contain these or similar clauses would likely be revealed when the stadium and CONMEBOL offer defenses. Sometimes courts refuse to enforce these types of clauses if they are cloaked in confusing legal jargon or tiresomely require a ticket holder to read another document in order to learn important details.
The defendants could also stress that in a negligence claim their conduct is judged under a reasonableness—not a perfection—standard. Liability won’t be automatically imposed merely because something bad happened. The stadium and CONMEBOL might contend they upped security, consulted venue experts and altered their approach in real time as circumstances changed, but the massive crowd and people breaking into the stadium through vents were not foreseeable. Expert testimony on both sides could play a key role in assessing reasonableness.
Another possible defense could involve delegation of authority. That is a fancy way of deflecting blame by asserting responsibility was delegated to private security or the police. Courts are often skeptical of this defense since the defendants delegated authority to those whom it hired or contracted. The defendants might thus still seem responsible, though contracts between the parties and language bearing on responsibility would be important to assess.
If the defendants are found liable, they could argue the plaintiffs have exaggerated their injuries. While missing the match was no doubt frustrating, whether it inflicted mental anguish, emotional harm and other legally cognizable ailments could be portrayed as unwarranted and overblown.
