$25,000,000 Wrongful Death – Patron at event venue dies after fall in unguarded area Hazardous condition had existed for years

This wrongful death action arose from a fatal fall at a large, privately owned entertainment and event venue.
Our client, a middle-aged professional and primary wage-earner for his family, sustained a catastrophic head injury after falling from an unguarded elevated area adjacent to a pedestrian route controlled and maintained by the defendants.

The evidence showed that the hazardous condition — a steep, elevated drop-off without barriers, warnings or physical protections — had existed for years.

Surveillance video, photographs and internal documents established that venue operators were aware that patrons regularly traversed the area, particularly during periods of heavy pedestrian congestion, yet failed to install readily available safety measures.

Multiple witnesses and corporate designees testified that the defendants operated a centralized command and surveillance system with real-time monitoring of pedestrian movement throughout the property. Video footage obtained in discovery documented repeated patron use of the hazard area and prior near-miss incidents. Despite that knowledge, no fencing, signage or personnel were deployed to prevent access to the danger before the fatal incident.

Critically, documents revealed that the defendants had approved a proposal to install protective fencing before the incident but failed to implement it. Temporary barriers were installed almost immediately after the fatality, followed shortly by permanent fencing —measures that were inexpensive, simple and effective. The timing of the corrective actions became a central liability issue.
The decedent survived for a period following the fall and required emergency transport, intensive care, and life-sustaining treatment before he succumbed to his injuries. He left a surviving spouse and minor children.

Economic damages included substantial lost earnings, benefits and household services, supported by expert analysis. Non-economic damages encompassed conscious pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and loss of parental guidance.

The plaintiffs also asserted punitive damages based on evidence of reckless disregard for public safety.

The case presented significant exposure due to compelling video evidence, admissions by corporate representatives, and the ease with which the hazard could have been eliminated.