This paper analyzes Florman v. City of New York (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), a tort liability case arising from injuries sustained at a 1996 Lollapalooza concert at Downing Stadium. The paper provides a seven-point factual overview of the incident, summarizes the court's findings regarding the event promoter's duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and provide adequate security, and evaluates the ruling's legal benefits and limitations. It further considers the fairness of the court's decision, which declined to impose liability while issuing strong warnings about future security obligations for both the event promoter and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.
Florman v. City of New York, No. 497 (N.Y. App. Div. May 7, 2002), arose from events that took place on July 11, 1996, when Jill Florman attended a Lollapalooza concert at Downing Stadium in New York with a group of friends.
Florman's friends did not have tickets and purchased them from a scalper at the venue. The tickets were deemed counterfeit by venue personnel, and the group was turned away. They returned to the parking lot where they had previously been tailgating for approximately 30 to 40 minutes.
Two male friends of the plaintiff then sought out the scalper who had sold the counterfeit tickets, and a fight ensued. While Florman was watching the altercation, standing near the car in which the group had arrived, she was struck by a vehicle. At least one other concertgoer was also struck. The driver's identity was never discovered, though the group believed the driver was an associate of the scalper, who also was never identified.
Responsibility for security at the venue rested solely with the concert promoter and organizer — Delsener/Slater Enterprises, Inc.; Ardee Festivals, Inc.; Ardee Productions, Ltd.; Beach Concerts Inc.; Broadway Concerts, Inc.; Ron Delsener; and Mitch Slater (collectively "Delsener") — pursuant to a permit issued by the City of New York.
The suit claimed that Delsener and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation were liable for Florman's injuries on the grounds that security for the event was inadequate, and that the scalper's presence, the ensuing fight, and the automobile incident could therefore have been prevented.
The court found that Delsener had been granted unrestricted use of the stadium and parking fields and thus stood in the position of an occupant or lessee of the premises, making Delsener subject to premises liability to third parties for failure to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
In addition, the court found that Delsener's common-law duty to maintain the parking area in a reasonably safe condition included providing minimal security against the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. The court also rejected Delsener's claim of lack of prior notice, finding that its contract with the City — which required Delsener to provide security both inside and outside the stadium — gave notice of a perceived risk.
Ultimately, however, the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the incident was an intentional criminal act and that adequate security would have prevented it from occurring.
"Dual legal benefits of the ruling for parties"
"Practical risks for parks department and venues"
"Assessment of ruling's equity and proportionality"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.