Mass hysteria. The mob mentality. We’ve seen many examples of it in literature such as in Frankenstein, in legend in the Salem witch trials and in recent history in St. Louis and other cities after police are accused of racial bias. But those events all arose from incidents associated with negative actions and are explained, or even justified, based upon those circumstances.
So why does the same mob mentality arise from positive incidents?
Perhaps the best examples of this are rioting and looting after a team wins a championship. Still one of the most expensive in history is the 1992 “celebration” by ecstatic fans in Chicago that caused $10 million in property damage and looting after the Bulls won their second consecutive championship. Police also reported 1,000 arrests for burglary, theft, and injuries inflicted.
But some examples happen not in the city surrounding the events but on college campuses, usually following an unexpected win in a sports contest. Goal posts are dismantled on football fields and basketball courts are packed beyond capacity. In basketball, it’s known as court storming. And the dangerous consequences of the fervent fan activity are becoming more evident with every incident.
Earlier this month, after an unbelievable comeback against in-state rival Iowa, Iowa State fans were overcome with excitement and stormed the court. Even though the University says that the celebration followed security protocol, a reporter on the scene was carried out of the coliseum with a broken leg. Earlier this year, as teams got closer to March Madness, Kansas State fans stormed the court after upsetting then No. 8 ranked Kansas. In that case, one Kansas player fortunately escaped injury after a K-State fan allegedly charged him with his shoulder and Coach Bill Self found himself trapped against the scorer’s table behind the mob on the court.
Some blame the incidents on students and their collective lack of maturity and not being able to foresee the consequences of such a dangerous activity. But if you look at the photos and videos of these occurrences, you’ll often see many older adults, including alumni and those who live in the community where the school is located who cheer on their home team, taking part in the fracas as well.
Of course, worrying about human carnage is only one of the concerns. For universities and even municipalities where games are played, injuries suffered during one of these incidents could also be financially devastating. The legal ramifications are one of the issues that have led at least one major athletic conference to institute sanctions for events that occur at its member schools.
In 2004, the Southeastern Conference adopted a policy to fine schools that allow, or refuse to prevent, court storming (and football field storming) incidents. In the 2014-15 season, five SEC schools were fined. Because of the number of incidents, the Conference substantially increased its fines: $50,000 for the first offense; $100,000 for the second; and for the third or any subsequent offense, $250,000.
Other conferences disagree. After the melee in Kansas last season, the Big 12 put the issue on its agenda at Media Days this past summer. The Conference voted against any formal sanctions. Conference Commissioner Bill Bowlsby said that the Big 12 would “manage it rather than prohibit it”.
While the SEC is leading the pack in sanctions for violations, is that amount of money really a deterrent to a school with pockets as deep as Alabama? Is it going to take a class action lawsuit of mammoth proportions after several people are seriously injured or even a death occurs to get in situations to prevent or better police these occurrences? One attorney told Bloomberg news about the potentially devastating liability: “It would be nice if we could stop that first tragic poster child from getting hurt.”
But how close have we already come? And can it be managed?
Over the last couple of years, other incidents certainly beg the question. A disabled student in a wheelchair was nearly trampled when his wheelchair was tipped over by mobbing fans after a North Carolina State win in 2013. A fight broke out between New Mexico State players and Utah Valley fans after an overtime win in 2014. One of the worst outcomes reported occurred in 2004 but is still relevant today. A high school athlete who, on the day before his 18th birthday, scored the winning dunk against a rival school and was then thrown to the floor during a storming, suffered a stroke and torn carotid artery. While he has graduated from college, the now 27-year-old is paralyzed on his right side.
Fine print commonly found on the back of tickets to sporting events. (via aviationlawmonitor.com)
The legal question
In today’s litigious society, one would think that someone injured in a storming incident could just sue the university where the incident occurred. But the colleges are protected by a legal concept known as assumption of risk.
If you’ve ever used to ticket to enter an event, whether a football or basketball game, or a concert, somewhere on the ticket is likely a disclaimer that alerts the ticketholder to the lack of liability of the entertainer or team, its management team or the venue where the event occurs. The theory behind assumption of the risk is that someone who attends an event can reasonably expect that certain things will occur and the attendee takes the risk of being there even with that knowledge. So if a fan has seen courtstorming or seen a crowd take down a goalpost and carry it off, is that enough of a foreseeable assumption of risk?
But even assumption of risk can be argued against if the school or facility fails to provide adequate security to the extent that a reasonable fan would expect. And who determines what is reasonable: is it what the majority of schools do? Since reports seem to indicate that schools and administrations are not doing much, is that all that the reasonable spectator should expect?
Interestingly, just this month, SB Nation published a story reporting that the University of Alabama doesn’t pay local police officers for security at their home games, even though the officers are working overtime. The City of Tuscaloosa, or rather its taxpayers, pay the toll. But is that acceptable given the number of dollars that the athletic department of the school with the fourth highest revenue in the NCAA generates in the sold-out slate of games throughout the season?
The Question for College ADs
The real question is: knowing (or at least assuming) that eventually someone will be killed in one of these incidents, who will be responsible? The answer can run the gamut from the person who was killed due to reckless or intoxicated actions, to the institution, to the municipality if it fails to provide adequate security, whether compensated or not.
Calling on conferences or even the NCAA to address these issues on a broader spectrum, much as the NFL has had to do with the concussion liability issue, may be the only answer. In order to address legal issues that could arise at any venue in any conference, a strict policy across the board will at least create a guidepost for those who suffer injury or bring legal actions to determine where the fault lies. In the meantime, each individual institution should look at its own security policies to try to limit the danger – and the liability – to the extent possible.
Feature image via D. Purdy/Getty Images
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.