Risk Management: Case of Heenan v. Comcast Spectator - Essay Example

Risk management: case study of Heenan v. Comcast spectator case The process of identification, analysis and prioritizing risks superseded by minimizing, reducing, monitoring and controlling the probability of an occurrence from happening that may disorient a sport business is known as risk management. Its role is not elimination of risk but the creation of a conducive environment with minimal inherent risks and without change in activity. A strict risk management plan is essential as it gives better control over legal uncertainties reducing chances of being sued since a single mistake might result in financial restraints and probably unemployment which is easily preventable (Matt 2012). There are three main factors to be considered in securing a safe venue; getting a proper developing, implementing and managing (D.I.M.) process, obeying standards of practice and dealing with crowd management (Matt 2012). The D.I.M. process begins with identification of risks and categorizing them followed by classifying the risks depending on their severity and lastly selection of a risk treatment method. Treating risks is done in four ways; risk avoidance, risk transfer, risk retention and risk reduction (Matt 2012). Risk avoidance is done through discontinuation of the program or lack of inclusion of the content. Risk transfer is done through hiring of a third party and ensuring they sign a waiver thus limiting liability .Risk retention is carried out through the company retaining the risk and taking up responsibility for compensation of injuries or financial risks occurred. Risk reduction is done through immediate implementation which is crucial since it is done after risk identification to lessen the impact of a lawsuit. Employee involvement is recommended together with written documentation on the happenings.in large scale venues, it is cost effective to hire a risk manager to oversee the plan so as to reduce liabilities resulting in repeat customers. Standards of practice are safety codes representing opinion consensus with the approval of an industry’s professional segment. They are requirements needed of an establishment and minimize liability associated with negligence when adhered to and increase liability when disregarded by the defendant. Crowd management is a fundamental aspect of risk management since it helps in the provision of a safe and enjoyable event. This means management of guests’ movement, emergency assistance and accommodation of special needs guests. There are six elements in crowd control and handling; clear signage for ease of movement, staff training on dealing with any happening, good communication system, emergency action plan, written policies regarding intoxicated patrons with disruptive behavior and implementation and evaluation of plans after every event (Matt 2012). These steps help in maximizing risk reduction when implemented correctly. Negligence has been the root cause of risk management cases causing ripples in the sport industry like the example below was due to failure to provide a secure and safe environment. In the December of 2002,Michelle Heenan, a single 39 year old North Philadelphia resident who worked as an administrative assistant at a local hospital, together with company went to attend a Guns n Roses concert at the Wachovia center, previously known as the First Union center. Slightly after 11pm, after a few curtain raising acts an announcement was made that the main act would not perform thus the show was cancelled. The irate fans vented their anger by throwing food and drinks from the upper decks everywhere (Matt 2012). On sensing the lurking danger, this being a rock crowd, Heenan ran towards the nearest exit and in the process, got caught up in the frenzy, fell and ended up injuring her ankle which got a plate and three screws inserted. Her injuries cost her two months of work and permanent inability to participate in activities such as skiing and rollerblading. Heenan filed a suit against Comcast Spectator and Spectrum Arena Limited for negligence and damages. The jury in Heenan vs Comcast Spectator and Spectrum Arena Limited awarded Heenan $140,000 in the spring of 2005 (Matt 2012). Heenan testified after cancellation of the show that the crowd became unruly and that the only security she saw at the exits were two employees in yellow jackets. Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Eugene E.J. Maier wrote that the vice president for security in Comcast Spectator, Michael Hasson testified of the great damage the angered fans had done to the arena which would cost the management tens of thousands of dollars in approximate repairs in addition to six people who were injured by chairs during the commotion and required immediate hospitalization. In Hasson’s testimony, the arena management had knowledge of a probable cancellation of the concert as early as 7:45pm of the said night which prompted them to order for the removal of any objects which might be used by the fans (who had bought snacks and beer in the preceding hours) and brought in extra security personnel. He also testified that he knew of a similar incident which had occurred the previous month of November 2002 in Vancouver, British Columbia which made him anticipate the crowd’s wild and destructive response (Matt 2012). The plaintiff’s counsel brought in a security expert for the trial, Terence Gibbs who testified that the security in place that night were improperly trained and the security personnel teams should have been in strategic places in response to the concert cancellation announcement. Hasson’s testimony indicates that his knowledge of hard rock fans that needed surplus security even in ordinary circumstances and admission on the stand of knowledge of the earlier Vancouver incident where the mob rioted in response to the same artistes’ cancellation of their concert reinstates Gibbs statement that he should have had an alternative plan incase of cancellation. Citing section 344 of the Restatement of Torts which concerns property possessors who neglect providing a safe environment for business invitees, Maier concluded that Heenan had got her burden of proof in the negligence claim against Comcast Spectator and Spectrum Arena Limited (Matt 2012). Section 344 reads in part that defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to anticipate possible dangers and to take reasonable precautions against them and the hurried rush toward the exits by almost 14,000 fans of Guns n Roses all feeling let down, others mad, others violent can be considered as harmful third party conduct as referred to in the above section which defendants should have foreseen and come up with a plan to protect visitors such as the plaintiff. On cross examination by the plaintiff’s counsel, Maier noted that Hasson declined to call the November 2002 incident a riot while using the same term on direct examination. Despite Heenan’s medical bills totaling to $60,000 and wages lost at $5,800 summing up to $65,800 the judge refused to slash the amount pointing out that the simple contrast of out of pocket expenses and the verdict will not by itself provide enough basis to upset the award (Matt 2012). The arena authorities were held responsible for the mobs appetite for destruction and the injured people’s treatment as a result of the commotion. They assumed that they would manage the fans anger but their anger grew out of proportion coupled with their limited security personnel ending up with disastrous consequences for the company. Comcast Spectator and Spectrum Arena Limited should have been well prepared for this hard rock event with several alternatives. One is to have well trained sufficient security personnel and others on standby due to the nature of rock fans behavior even under ordinary circumstances based on the Vancouver incident outcome. Secondly coming up with alternative acts incase the main act failed you in the last minute since the same group had cancelled their earlier show would have evened out if they had an alternative big rock act. In addition the arena management took a long time to make the cancelation announcement since they had the knowledge by 7:45pm yet the announcement was made slightly after 11pm (three hours later).It was an unwise move as some of fans were high and had stayed long enough to feel hungry and thirsty thus the purchase of food and drinks which were used as objects in venting their anger. The earlier the announcement was made meant less damage in terms of estimated repairs. Plus the security detail would have minimized the damages on the arena. In a nutshell, risk reduction would have worked well to minimize the damage since risk identification was the cancellation of a guns and roses concert and rock fans are known for their rowdiness. This meant provision of extra security, having an alternative act and making the announcement earlier since most weapons used were food and drinks bought after waiting for a long while. Failure to adhere to risk management plans or poor implementation of them leads to financial repercussions or even denting an organizations image thus proper following of the risk management processes is essential. REFERENCES Young’s, Matt. Risk Management. 2012. Retrieved on 24/03/2013 from https://docs.google.com/document/preview?hgd=1&id=1Fr1Z7oZIX5gEioXUWJiKDc-ewq5GYG5NlJIEu58kbu8 Read More