Talk Elections

Sponsor: Napoleon

So, they can just take their claim to state court? What if the lawsuit actually has merit and the venue actually did commit a tort/criminal offense? This bill is basically saying they can sue for a claim under $75,000.

I'm going to clarify the wording on this.

I also don't think we need to be in the business to legislate laws barring individuals from accessing the justice system. Concert venues are free to draft waivers that attendees must agree to prior to selling them tickets or entering the venue, but making a federal law that says they cannot sue in federal court is a bit extreme, and I am not sure if we could even do it, although I don't know what the constitution says about it.

Venues are free to write waivers or contracts all they want that will make the attendee assume the risk of attending a concert. However, and I will wait to see your final bill, this bill basically says that regardless of the incident, you cannot sue in federal court even if it is warranted (whether they be diverse citizens, etc). I actually see no way this could be reworded to avoid injustice now that I think about it. Gun ranges and the like have waivers that they will not be responsible for injuries resulting from some things, but you don't go to a concert expecting something bad could happen.

Bump ;)

The only thing he can really do to reword it is to cap the amount someone can recover, which is usually only punitive damages anyway and not compensatory damages. Unless this senate wants to start passing Stalin like legislation, this bill should be tabled unless tort reform is what Napoleon is aiming for.

I think it might be best to clarify this by banning legal action against venues or performers in cases that the injury was not directly caused by the venue or performer, and then only if the venue was up to code.

For example, if you are moshing and get trampled, you have no right to sue the venue or performer... but would have standing to sue the venue if it could be proven that they let too many people in, for example.  Or if they had pyrotechnics that injured somebody.

I think this would strike a balance where performers and venues are held accountable as far as they should be... being responsible for the general safety of the audience members... but not to go so far as to allow legal action from audience members who were acting stupid and got themselves hurt.

Essentially, you both want tort reform? In any event, an individual will not get far in bringing a claim against the venue if a person has done the harm unless, as Snowguy said, the venue was being negligent in allowing too many people into the concert. In most cases, the law will work itself out with the given guidelines. This bill really is not necessary as a judge will likely toss out any case that is joining the venue along with the individual defendant. If you want to make sure they are not brought, then just cap punitive damages and people will be less likely to bring a frivolous case.

The more I think about this, we have to table it. Motion to table!

We're now voting on a motion to table. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Nay to the motion

Aye am with the law student on this.

Aye, this doesn't do anything that venues can't do themselves with waivers.

So if a basketball arena had a water buildup on their roof, the owners did nothing about it, and it collapsed and killed hundreds of people, they couldn't sue? However, if the same thing happened at a basketball game instead, they could?

Hm.

I'm extremely sceptical toward bill in current form, but instead of just throwing it away, we should consider amending it to protect venues and performers from sensless lawsuits when they indeed were not responsible for those factors.

I'll vote nay on the motion to table.

Those voting may need to educate themselves on the law or offer a reasonable alternative. And I don't know a really reasonable alternative that would be anything like this bill. All this is doing is blocking citizens from accessing the justice system.

Nay and sorry for not posting the update ill get that up tonight.

The motion to table has failed. Debate resumes.

Hurry up with the amendment, Napoleon. ;D

Should we final vote on this if there will be no amendment offered?

1. Parties claiming injury as a result of a concert or other musical performances shall not have standing to sue venues, performers, or their representatives in federal courts unless:
a. the venue has failed to meet federal legal standards,
b. the performers are directly involved in the incident causing damages,
c. the party claiming injury is a minor.

I can support this.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the sponsor's amendment.

So the venue is responsible if the band commits a crime? Why are we even debating this bill now? We are going from screwing the people to screwing the venue. Ok. Let's just vote on this bill and settle it. As a law student, this debate is annoying me.

The amendment has passed.

FINAL VOTE TIME LOL

Nay on final vote

Nay

Aye

Nay

aye

Aye.

Nay

Nay

You're right that the law, as it is being voted on, is imprecise and opens the flood gates to venues if the groups they host hurt a customer.

The bill should be broken down further to make clear which cases a venue can be sued, a performer can be sued, etc.

I will try to make that clarification if this bill lands on my desk and send it back to the senate.

Aye

This bill currently has 3 ayes and 5 nays. With Kalwejt's resignation, 5 is a majority.

This has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Uh, why would Kalwejt's vote stop counting. I'm sure it doesn't work like that.

Aye

So no, it doesn't fail.

Jbrase and Duke's votes should be disqualified, if any.

Otherwise I better see my early votes counted before the final vote is opened. Not sure it's supposed to work like that either.

I've reviewed the OSPR and think you're right.

So the vote is 5-5 and is goes to Bacon King.

Alright. Kind of a funny bill to have such a partisan vote on, huh?

On board with President Snowguy for this one. I vote Aye and am looking forward to his recommended revisions.

This has passed and is presented to the President for his signature or veto.

Why should Duke's vote be disqualified? He contributed more than any other Senator to this debate.

The vote hadn't been opened.

The header said final vote when I voted. Bgwah simply hadn't posted it in his post.

I am revising the bill to make the cases where parties have legal standing more specific.  The bill, as is, pretty much leaves the doors wide open.


1. Parties claiming injury or damages as a result of a concert or other musical performance shall not have standing to sue venues unless the venue has failed to meet federal legal standards.

2.  Parties claiming injury or damages as a result of a concert or other musical performance shall not have standing to sue performers unless the performers are directly involved in the incident causing damages.

3.  Sections 1 and 2 of this bill shall not apply to minors.

Senator Napoleon, as sponsor of this bill, would you like for the Senate to vote on whether to approve President Snowguy's modifications, or would you prefer to have the bill withdrawn?

Vote

We are now voting on the President's revisions of the Freedom to Perform Act:

---

Aye.

Aye

aye

Nay

Nay

From a legal standpoint, this is still an unnecessary bill.

Nay

Abstain

Currently at 3 Ayes, 4 Nays, and 1 Abstention. I'm a bit surprised. I didn't like the original bill but if it's already set in stone we may as well try to make it better.

Aye.

It's been over a week since we started voting on the Presidential revisions, and we've reached a tie of 4 Ayes and 4 Nays, with 1 abstaining.

Given the tie, I've now sent one of my aides to fetch the Vice President to break the tie.

AND SO WE WAIT.

Aye.

Well then! This bill has passed and is up for Presidential Signage.

Uh, this may not be parliamentary procedure, but WTF!!!!!!!!!

How depressing.

Doesn't something just becomes law after a week with no sig/veto?