Posted On: March 15, 2009

Assumption of Risk: Mosh Martyr

Supreme Court, New York County: Schoneboom v. B.B. King Blues Club


What do Kill Your Idols, Sub Zero and the Crumb Suckers have in common? They were all heavy metal bands (no offense to the bands if they take issue with the court’s characterization) playing B.B. King’s on August 3, 2006. Mr. Schoneboom was a big-bad-band fan. For him, you’re never too old for a little “slam dancing,” the more “aggressive” form of the ever-popular and intimate “moshing.” 36-year-old Schoneboom was a veteran of the slam-dance two step, having attended more than a hundred concerts where he frolicked in the mosh pits at least thirty to forty times.

The events in question took place during the Crumb Suckers set (in case you were wondering).

The night had begun pleasant enough. While Kill Your Idols was performing, plaintiff went to the lower level to get a better view of the slam dancing going on. A “good time” was being had by all as the fans bounced around off each other in a kinetic frenzy of fun and fisticuffs. After the set, plaintiff returned to his seat in the upper level, away from mosh central. Then Sub Zero came on. As Schoneboom describes it, the slam dancing now seemed “quite a bit more malicious.” Dancers were throwing themselves into non-participants, elbows were being thrown and celebrants were "taking potshots at perimeter people.” For this set, plaintiff remained in the demilitarized zone of the upper level.

But when the Crumb Suckers were about to come on, Schoneboom threw caution to the wind. He found his way to a spot 10 -12 feet from stage, directly in front of the moshkateers. At seven minutes into the performance, plaintiff “felt a shove from behind into the side of his knee which felt like a kick,” but didn’t see which mosher had mashed him. Plaintiff ended up with a knee injury and surgery. He then sued B.B. King’s.

Much to his dismay, the court slam-danced Schoneboom right out of court.

“If the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, plaintiff has consented to them and defendant has performed his duty” to exercise reasonable care. This is a longstanding rule of law that applies to all sorts of activities, including ball games, horseback riding and even samba dancing.

Schoneboom staked out his turf near the stage and the mosh pit only moments after having observed the more “malicious” slam-dancing that occurred when Sub Zero was performing. “Here, plaintiff not only elected to assume the risk of concert-going in a mosh dancing venue but was in the position, given his experience, to fully appreciate the risk.”

As for the injury, that he did not appreciate.

For Schoneboom court was a bust and there would be no dancing for dollars.

Case dismissed.

Posted On: March 1, 2009

Government Speech: Monumental Messages

U.S. Supreme Court: Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum


Hard to evaluate this decision. For now, score one for the like-minded. Five or ten years from now, the score could change dramatically, and so too could the way we look at this decision.

Pioneer Park is in Pleasant Grove City Utah. There are a variety of permanent monuments and displays in the park, just as there are in Central Park, the Boston Commons and Grant Park in Chicago. Cities everywhere put up monuments, either with their money or with privately donated funds. So here’s the question: Once a city puts a monument in its park, must it put up other monuments if they are donated, paid for and inoffensive? And where exactly on the free speech scale do monuments fall?

The short answers are that cities do not have to put up other monuments, and there are no free speech issues involved. Because monuments are a form of “government speech” and therefore, “not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause” of the Constitution.

Pioneer Park already had 15 permanent displays, 11 of which were donated at no cost to the City. Included among its stone and granite collection was a Ten Commandments monument given to it by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.

Along comes Summum, a religious organization based in Salt Lake City that dates back to ancient 1975. Its president twice asked Pleasant Grove City permission to erect a stone monument which would contain “the seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM.” According to Summum theology,

the Seven Aphorisms were inscribed on the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai...Because Moses believed that the Israelites were not ready to receive the Aphorisms, he shared them only with a select group of people [apparently the early progenitors of the Summumites]. In the Summum Exodus account, Moses then destroyed the original tablets, traveled back to Mount Sinai, and returned with a second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

So the Ten Commandments were the next best thing. This isn’t exactly the Biblical account, but then the Summumites have an absolute right to believe whatever they want. They just don’t have an absolute right to say it in stone. And now, for the Summumites, history repeats itself as Pleasant Grove City, like Moses before it, also rejected the Seven Aphorisms. In response, the Summumites sued (which may be an eighth aphorism—someone should look into this) insisting the City must accept and place their monument in the park, particularly since it was going to be Summum simoleons that were footing the bill.

The lower court sided with Pleasant Grove City and affirmed its right to reject the Summum offer. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that if you take one view set in stone, you must take the other. Pleasant Grove appealed and the nation’s high court took a look at the statues.

According to the court, “if petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct” when they choose or don’t choose a particular statue, “then the Free Speech Clause has no application. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.” And, the court said, “Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.” The high court went on to describe how governments have “long used monuments to speak to the public.” Whether the statue is of George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Pancho Villa, these monuments communicate government messages. They are a “means of expression” and the local or national government has a right to pick and choose which monuments say best what they want to say most.

Maybe it’s time to take a hard look at the monuments that surround us and to listen close to what governments are saying now and what they were saying in the past. It may be a clue to the times we live in and what sort of statues we can expect to see in the future. While we might agree with Pleasant Grove’s decision to forgo the Seven Aphorisms for the Ten Commandments, who knows what our governments will be saying in stone ten years from now under their nearly absolute right to free government speech.

And finally, given the nature of monumental government speech, what exactly are the pigeons trying to tell us?