"There are more instances of criminal activity in Dodger Stadium than in any other ballpark in Major League Baseball," Stow's lawyers wrote in court papers filed Monday. "Moreover, defendants failed to appropriately recognize the probability of danger on opening day."
Stow was so concerned during the March 31 game about the tension in the stadium that he sent a text message to his family to let them know he felt intimidated, the attorneys contend. Stow was attacked in a stadium parking lot after the game, suffering severe head injuries. He remains hospitalized in San Francisco.
Two men have been charged with the attack and are awaiting trial.
Stow, a 42-year-old Santa Cruz resident, and his children, Tyler and Tabitha Stow, filed a lawsuit May 24 in Los Angeles Superior Court against McCourt and 13 team entities. Among the claims are assault, battery, negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring, assault and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Attorneys for the Dodgers filed court papers in August asking a judge to remove any claims for punitive damages, saying the lawsuit was vague.
"Most notably, the complaint does not specifically state which of the 14 named defendants undertook the alleged actions that purportedly gave rise to punitive damages," according to the Dodgers' court papers.
Stow's lawyers said they will know the answer to that question when the teams begin the traditional exchange of information.
Defense attorneys also want language removed from the lawsuit relating to the sale and consumption of alcohol at the stadium, the fact that a half-off beer promotion was cancelled after the Stow beating, allegations of financial mismanagement by McCourt and references to a "purported gang presence at Dodger Stadium."
But Stow's lawyers contend in their court papers that all those issues are relevant.
"Plaintiffs allege that McCourt's financial mismanagement led to the creation of a complex financial structure to fund his lavish lifestyle while depleting the Dodgers of necessary funds to operate adequately and properly," according to the court papers. "This depletion led to a decrease in security and a failure to institute the proper structural safeguards at the stadium."
Defense attorneys have also argued that Stow's two children should not be able to pursue a negligence claim because they were not at the game, nor were they present when their father was injured.
"It is axiomatic that a premises owner cannot owe a duty of care to a third party who is not on the premises...," the Dodger court papers state.
The lawyers also say the children do not have a viable claim for loss of consortium, society and comfort. They also contend that Stow and his children do not have a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In response, Stow's attorneys said they will agree to drop the children's claims for negligence, negligent hiring, negligent infliction of emotional distress and premises liability. But they insist the claim for loss of consortium should remain.
"There is no reason to accord the parent-child relationship second- class status," according to the Stow court papers. "While all family members enjoy a mutual interest in consortium, the parent-child relationship is undeniably unique. It is the parent-child relationship which most deserves protection and which has received judicial protection in many other jurisdictions."
A hearing on the team's motions is scheduled Sept. 30 before Judge Abraham Khan.
According to the Stow family court papers, the Giants had asked that the
opening-day game be moved to San Francisco so the team could celebrate its
2010 World Series victory, but the Dodgers refused.