Society, Torts

Tort In The End Zone: Woman Sues Dallas Cowboys Over Burned Buttocks

Jennelle Carrillo is suing the Dallas Cowboys and its owner Jerry Jones for toasting her bottom before a Blue & Silver scrimmage at the Cowboys stadium. Carrillo says that she sat on a black marble bench outside the stadium on a hot 101 degree day. The result, she says, was sever burns on her buttocks.


Carillo says that she had to be hospitalized and undergo skin grafts. Her lawsuit claims negligence in the lack of warnings about sitting on the benches in hot weather.

The complaint alleges that “The bench was uncovered and openly exposed to the extremely hot August sun. The combination of the nature of the black, marble bench and hot sunlight caused the bench to become extremely hot and unreasonable dangerous.”

The question is whether the football team had to warn an adult about the danger of hot surfaces in Texas during the summer. I do find it interesting that the Cowboys would select black marble as a material for a bench in Texas instead of a color or a material less likely to absorb heat. However, many materials are likely to become extremely hot in direct sunlight in Texas, including the concrete sidewalks. The court is likely to view this was falling into the “act of God” category and an injury from everyday living.

The lawsuit claims recovery for mental anguish, physical pain and disfigurement.

Here is the lawsuit: plaintiffs-original-petition-carrillo

Source: ESPN

37 thoughts on “Tort In The End Zone: Woman Sues Dallas Cowboys Over Burned Buttocks”

  1. PatricParamedic,

    I can’t get terribly upset about the tushi-burns OR the lawsuit; I can’t get terribly upset about the stupid idea of black marble bleachers, either, although I come a lot closer to “terribly upset” on that count. (As in “WTF is wrong with goldarn wooden bleachers you morons?”)

    But our system is equipped to deal with that. So let it go, I say. I am much more appalled that a parent who never did any primary childcare can sue 36 times during the childhood of one kid to remove custody from a primary caretaker psychological parent (because our equity system encourages that and our domestic relations lawyers love it) than that a woman whose butt was fried can sue the jerks who invited her to sit on a hot spot (after all, in Garcia Marquez’s great novel 100 Years of Soliltude, we hear that Ursula’s great-great-grandmother sat on a lighted stove when Sir Walter Raleigh’s crew invaded a South American port in the last days of the 16th Century, so we know that seemingly small injuries can affect the world deeply for centuries to come!). OK, I’ve got to rest a bit after forcing that sentence into its diagrammatic structure, pant pant pant — oh yeah, WHY WASN’T SHE WEARING PANTS TO A GAME, HUH?

    OK, anyway, we cannot afford to have a system where there is a pre-suit determination of whose injuries are more important than whose-else’s injuries. I don’t think we can do it. Better to struggle along and have what we have, with the judges collecting their true and false (probably in equal proportions) war stories along the way.

    Come to think of it, some of these judges ought to be forced to sit on black marble, because they’ve been burning folks’ a55es for a long time!

  2. Woosty said:

    “You make it sound as if using the legal channels in the manner for which they are designed is irresponsible.”

    My take is, just because something is legal, doesn’t in any way make it “right.” And I’m sure you can think of as many examples as I can.

    And I suspect one could make a strong argument, that the “channels” were never originally designed to ensure that – in the absence of common sense – somebody else ought to pay for my witlessness.

    You’ve heard the phrase, “what would Jesus do?”

    Well, every now and then, we might ask ourselves what would Benjamin Franklin or Harry Truman do.

    I find it unlikely any of our common sense leaders of the past, would ever endorse this particularly slippery slope; it favors mental sloppiness over integrity. It costs the rest of the citizenry dollars they ought not have to spend.

    And it never, ever ends..

  3. Woosty >”I’d just as soon have the courts enforcing the need for common sense n the hallowed corporate and moneymongering halls and not turning a blind eye against the civilians that are all too often just fodder for their self agrandizement””Personal responsibility? She was the irresponsible one for sitting on a public bench?”<

    When said bench is made of black granite and is not shaded from the 100+ degree weather, yes that WAS irresponsible, and there is no reason someone else should pay for her irresponsibility.

  4. Patrick….the paintbrush you paint with is toooooo broad.

    Utopia is a long way off and until then, I’d just as soon have the courts enforcing the need for common sense in the hallowed corporate and moneymongering halls and not turning a blind eye against the civilians that are all too often just fodder for their self agrandizement. You make it sound as if using the legal channels in the manner for which they are designed is irresponsible.

  5. Woosty said:

    “Why weren’t the providers irresponsible for not making sure that what they stuck out in a public place was safe?”

    Woosty –

    As a safety sort. I’m left to surmise that nearly everything mankind creates is safe, until someone struck temporarily witless comes along to prove it isn’t safe for them. Have you ever used a vending machine? If so, did you realize they kill people who tip them over? You could be dead now.

    For 17 nutty teenagers each decade, they’d have been safer swimming with sharks.

    I’m no lawyer either. But I’m guessing that were I defending the Dallas Cowboys, I’d use the cameras to estimate how many thousands of other adults manage to safely pass on the ebony stonework in 100 degree heat. So one in a hundred thousand scorches her derriere, and suddenly its a public hazard? I’d say with odds like that, she’s the hazard. And Lord help us, she probably drives.

    Encouraging abdication of personal responsibility, does – in my opinion – enormous and never-ending damage to society as a whole. Providing monetary award for simple human mistakes is insanity personified.

    How refreshing might it be some day, far, far in the future, when American adults exhibit plain, ordinary common sense; yell “oww-ee” and then scold themselves for pulling a boner.

    It’s time we all do society a great big favor, and ask ourselves one, simple question:

    “What would the Amish do?”

    I’ll tell you what they don’t do: they don’t point a finger with their own arm attached.

  6. This gleeful zeal to provide cash rewards for all people from all things careless, strikes me as inherently flawed on any number of levels:

    How can this group-think not erode personal responsibility far beyond recognition, creating its own potty swirl of never-ending goofiness, for which somebody “else” ought to pay?

    How does saving all human animals from their own escalating misdeeds not fly in the face of one of Darwin’s niftiest Laws?
    This gleeful zeal to provide cash rewards for all people from all things careless, strikes me as inherently flawed on any number of levels:
    _~Patrickparamedic_____

    Patrick, I’m not a lawyer but my understanding of winning $$$ in a lawsuit is not because you are being ‘rewarded’ but to be compensated in an only manner left after sufferring harm. It is also supposed to serve as the kind of warning (in the language that is undeniable….) to those who think primarily in those $$$$ terms and need the courts to make them do the right and decent thing.

    Personal responsibility? She was the irresponsible one for sitting on a public bench? Why weren’t the providers irresponsible for not making sure that what they stuck out in a public place was safe? Your thinking is as askew as those who say women who dress a certain way are asking to be raped.

    ‘This gleeful zeal to provide cash rewards ‘….right, I’ve noticed a lot of that lately….

  7. This is the reason that I have such a dim view of tort law. Even a CHILD knows that you don’t sit on a stone surface in the sun in Arlington Texas. Woosty, you are right BUT where is the common sense? I think she got exactly what she deserved (and I don’t even LIKE the ‘Cowboys’). Personal Responsibility.

  8. When she takes her seat in the witness stand please have the bailiff take the temperature of the seating. On cross examination I would ask her to show her ass to the jury. We need to know if there are any long lasting damages. If she farts then reduce the award.

  10. Excuse me, who builds black marble bleachers?

    WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO??

    And while we’re at it: WHY????

  12. “If it was as hot as a stove and her “sit” was momentary and she received 3rd degree burns, I think she should prevail.”

    Sorry, but this kind of “gee-it-just-couldn’t-be-my-fault” thinking scares the hell out of me.

    This gleeful zeal to provide cash rewards for all people from all things careless, strikes me as inherently flawed on any number of levels:

    How can this group-think not erode personal responsibility far beyond recognition, creating its own potty swirl of never-ending goofiness, for which somebody “else” ought to pay?

    How does saving all human animals from their own escalating misdeeds not fly in the face of one of Darwin’s niftiest Laws?

  16. Is That all someone has to do is steer you back to reality nick? are you sure? Then you won’t be so antisocial? I am sure that this is only a trick Nick.

Comments are closed.