The Defendant
The defendant in the case of comedian George Wallace vs. Bellagio Hotel is the latter, which is a world-renowned hotel and casino owned and operated by the MGM Mirage Hotels and Casinos. Bellagio Hotel is located along the famous Las Vegas strip in Paradise, Nevada. Furthermore, the description of the hotel incorporates luxury and its grand ballroom and event center is where shows and performances both public and private gatherings are being held. In the hotel is where the unfortunate event occurred involving the comedian George Wallace, which was according to the accounts of the case the comedian, suffered a personal injury of ruptured Achilles tendon while performing on stage at the Bellagio Hotel. The case acknowledges the defendant as the Bellagio Hotel.
The Plaintiff
In the case of George Wallace vs. Bellagio Hotel, the former is thereto acknowledge as the plaintiff. George Wallace or formerly Henry Wallace was born in Atlanta, Georgia and has been in the entertainment business since 1976 and age 66 at the time of the incident. Wallace’s 38 years of being a stand-up comedian earned him a name in show business as one of the most prominent name in comedy. At the night of his performance at Bellagio for a corporate sponsored event, Wallace suffered a simultaneous rapture of his Achilles tendon, which perpetuated the case against Bellagio.
Facts of the Case
In December 8, 2007, George Wallace was invited as a guest performer for an HSBC sponsored event held at Bellagio Hotel. However, during the time of his performance, Wallace’s Achilles tendon had raptured. The cause of the personal injury was associated with the loose wires on the stage. The comedian filed a personal injury and civil negligence lawsuit against Hotel Bellagio and seeking at least $7.1 million in damages (Ritter). In defense of the the Bellagio hotel, the management stated that the comedian already had a pre-exiting injury on his Achilles tendon prior to his performance at the private party (Ritter). Furthermore, the defense also reiterated the fact that Wallace was present during the sound check three hours before the event and no particular obstacle is apparent that would exacerbate his injury. The case was tried at the Las Vegas Court where a jury vote of 6-2 provided the decision in favor of the Wallace. The jury awarded Wallace with $1.2 million for the losses in personal income and certain amount for medical expenses and other damages (Geer). HSBC was also named defendant in the case filed at the Clark County District Court 2009, but an undisclosed settlement relinquished the company from the said lawsuit.
Applied Theories of Tort Liability
The case of George Wallace v. Bellagio Hotel is an example of Tort liability case in which personal injury occurred as a result of the other party’s negligence. The theoretical underpinning of tort liability is based on the assumption that the victim of a wrong will seek remedy from the person or party that caused the harm to the victim. There are several interpretations of liability under the theories of tort such as strict liability and fault liability (Posner). In fault liability, each person is bound to be involved in incidents causing another person to be injured or vice versa. In this sense, a person can reasonably demand from another person for negligent if such disregard to safety had caused injury. On the other hand, strict liability can be interpreted as the people’s responsibility for their own safety. For instance, an injured person cannot demand for remedy from another if the cause of the injury was a result of the injured person’s own negligence. Furthermore, the theoretical perspectives of tort liability encompass normative and analytical principles in which the difference between the two lies on the justification of the goals that the tort embodies (Coleman, Hershovitz, and Medlow).
The Defendant’s Breach of Duty to the Plaintiff
Perhaps the most dominant factor in question regarding the case is whether or not the defendant, who in this case is Bellagio Hotel beached its duty to the plaintiff or George Wallace. It is important to remember that the core of the issue surrounding the case is all about negligence, and whether or not the defendant exercised enough precautionary measures to avoid the cause of injury. From one end of the spectrum, Bellagio hotel is responsible as for the safety of the guests and the people within its business premises. When the Bellagio accepted the reservation for the corporate event, it means that the hotel entered into a contract with the other party, which automatically asserts the duty of the hotel to ensure the safety of the individuals in the event including George Wallace. In addition, it is the duty of Bellagio Hotel management to exercise due care in which the loose wires on stage while the plaintiff is performing should have been subjected to thorough inspection. Considering that there is an existent loose wire on stage, and the hotel technical staff was not able to address or acknowledged the circumstances that may arise because of the loose wires, it demonstrates breach of duty.
The Cost of the Case
The eight-jury members in the Court acknowledged the arguments of the plaintiff and after 12 hours of deliberation, the decision came at 6-2 in favor of the plaintiff George Wallace. The original amount of $7 million in damages was reduced to $1.2 million for the plaintiff’s losses as a result of the injury in addition to $100,000 for the pain and suffering that the incident had caused, and $8,500 for the medical expenses. The amount was ordered by the Court to be paid by Bellagio Hotel to George Wallace.
Reflecting on the Defendant’s Decision to settle or to go to Trial
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only fitting that Bellagio Hotel chose to enter into trial instead of settlement. For one, the plaintiff is seeking for $7 million in total damages, which could have been upheld during the settlement. In addition, the settlement will only reinforce the perception of the people about the hotel being negligent, which might result to significant long-term loses for the business. Moreover, Bellagio hotel has a reason to believe that it did not cause the injury considering the established fact that the Wallace has a pre-existing condition on his Achilles tendon, which might coincidentally worsened because of his own negligence and not because of the loose wires on the stage. Apparently, the jury is more convinced of the plaintiff’s arguments causing the hotel to lose the case.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the outcome of George Wallace v. Bellagio Hotel, it is apparent that the negligence as part of the tort argument can be interpreted differently in Court. The perception of who should be responsible for what is a matter of being aware of the factors that might cause circumstances, which could have been avoided by simply being careful.
Works Cited
Coleman, Jules, Scott Hershovitz, and Gabriel Mendlow. "Theories Of The Common Law Of Torts".Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2003. Web. 23 June 2016.
Geer, Carri. "Las Vegas Jury Awards Comedian George Wallace $1.3 Million In Suit Against Bellagio".Las Vegas Review-Journal. N.p., 2014. Web. 23 June 2016.
Posner, Richard. "Instrumental And Noninstrumental Theories Of Tort Law". Indiana Law Journal 88.1 (2013): 469-525. Web. 23 June 2016.
Ritter, Ken. "Comic George Wallace Awarded $1.3 Million In Lawsuit Against Bellagio".LasVegasSun.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 23 June 2016.
