Hurf durf "push in your stool"

Woman suing hotel for $1 million after falling off one of their bar stools

Antoinette Allison of Reynoldsburg, Ohio was staying at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Syracuse, New York back in April 2011 when she went to the hotel's Library Lounge bar. reports that Ms. Allison claims that while waiting for food in the Library Lounge, she fell off of a "wooden, high-back bar stool," and landed on her wrist, causing multiple fractures that required surgery. She is now suing the hotel for $1 million.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Allison claims that the bar stool was too high off the ground, and that, "hotel management knew of other problems with the height of the stools." Her lawyer, Mark Ventrone, wrote in a 2012 complaint that, "Said bar stools were more dangerous than patrons would expect and safer designs are on the marketplace."



12 Responses:

  1. Richard says:

    Today in doomed-tagged Lowering the Bar news: Driver of SUV that hit cyclists suing dead teen’s family

      • mattyj says:

        I'm not sure what it's like in Canada, but in the US, criminal and civil courts are completely different thing. Even if she's not criminally culpable, she could certainly lose a case in civil court for being negligent. I think that's what the family of the deceased's family is after. I don't care that the SUV driver's husband is an officer in a different city/region, there's a brotherhood among police and something about a force investigating itself seems fishy. It'll all come out in the civil suit.

        And as long as we're wildly speculating about things that are not facts and are mostly conjecture, a quick google street view reveals that road to be extremely flat and extremely straight, with no obstructions for miles and miles. Someone traveling at her alleged speed with her headlights on should have more than enough time to stop for some bikes, regardless of how dark their clothing was. Read the original article:

        "... who acknowledged driving at about 90 km/h, above the 80 km/h limit ...", which is just her own testimony. It'll be interesting to see what happens when a real investigation happens, especially when we find out she was talking on the phone or texting at the time of the accident.

        This woman is reprehensible and needs a fucking shrink more than anything.

        • nooj says:

          No need to take her word for it. The NSA should be able to chime in here about her actual speed on that trip, and her speed tendencies on similar trips.

          • Nick Lamb says:

            As mattyj mentioned this is a civil suit, not an actual accident investigation. For an accident investigation facts like the speed of the car would be useful. The objective of the accident investigation is to understand what happened and generate lessons about how to prevent future harm which can then be disseminated.

            For a civil suit the objective is to tell a more convincing story than your opponent. Facts don't really enter into it, and most of the time will be avoided by both sides. Certainly there's no way that both sides would allow a fact as concrete as NSA speed evidence into court. Telling the truth and losing is still losing, better to lie and win.

            Accident investigation reports aren't acceptable as evidence in a lawsuit in civilised countries. This is satisfactory on both sides. The investigators don't want to be pressured to provide whatever sound bite an ambulance chaser wants to read out in court and the lawyers don't want some anorak messing up their nice story with facts and analysis that show it's impossible.

      • nooj says:

        That counterpoint is bullshit. Not bullshit because it's false or misrepresentative; he's right on. It's bullshit because this argument doesn't justify the SUV driver's actions. Oh, she experienced the same goddamn thing every other perp-walker has experienced? That's definitely worth a million dollars!

  2. Pavel Lishin says:

    Weird, I saw someone named Richard post something about a woman who hit and killed someone with her SUV, and is now suing the family, but the comment is gone - but I'm gonna post this rebuttal anyway, because it's a good read:

  3. J. Peterson says:

    Fast forward to 2025: To meet new ABC regulations, our host is shelling out thousands for bar stools equipped with airbags.

  4. gryazi says:

    Only $1m? That's like just the hospital bill to reassemble a wrist and before it gets negotiated down in probably-settlement.

    I'm trying to figure out a way to mumble this without being a huge dick but wasn't there a time in America when those trendy thin square-frame freestanding Pottery Barn-style wooden "bar stools" [shown if you squint at the back of the picture in the article] weren't a thing you'd see at a place that actually expected to deal with drunk morons? (Conceding that everything about The System is Dumb and sucks for everyone, but are those ever a good idea or just a 'cheapest possible vaguely keeping up with Ikea fashion-trends' idea?)

    Obviously everyone has a right to choose not to get sloppy somewhere that looks like it has shitty furniture, but if you go to scoot that fucker back a half inch and it catches in the artfully-placed tile seam and the next thing you know you're out a hand... [And whoever wrote the article did say 'waiting for food' and not 'sloppy drunk.']