Far from the Madding Crowd: A Statutory Solution to Crowd Crush

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2016-02-24 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2738169
Tracy Hresko Pearl
{"title":"Far from the Madding Crowd: A Statutory Solution to Crowd Crush","authors":"Tracy Hresko Pearl","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2738169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crowd-related injuries and deaths occur with surprising frequency in the United States. In recent years, crowd members in the United States have sustained significant injuries and even fatalities at concerts, sporting events, “doorbuster” sales, nightclubs, and large festivals. While some of these incidents have prompted victims to file negligence suits against event organizers and venue owners, common law has proven to be ineffective at addressing “crowd crush.” Indeed, courts have repeatedly held for defendants in these cases, making a series of scientific and legal errors in the process, and providing little incentive for organizers and owners to improve their crowd management practices. Additionally, ad hoc crowd management efforts on the part of a few concerned promoters and venues have done little to reduce the risk of crowd-related injuries in cities and states as a whole. In this paper, I argue that state and local adoption of crowd management statutes is the only remaining solution that can effectively reduce the number of crowd crush injuries and fatalities in the United States each year. Because there are currently no such laws in this country, I propose a model statute that draws upon fundamental principles of crowd science in requiring event organizers and venue owners to take a series of relatively simple steps both in advance and during large gatherings that will drastically reduce the likelihood of crowd crush.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":"159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2738169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Crowd-related injuries and deaths occur with surprising frequency in the United States. In recent years, crowd members in the United States have sustained significant injuries and even fatalities at concerts, sporting events, “doorbuster” sales, nightclubs, and large festivals. While some of these incidents have prompted victims to file negligence suits against event organizers and venue owners, common law has proven to be ineffective at addressing “crowd crush.” Indeed, courts have repeatedly held for defendants in these cases, making a series of scientific and legal errors in the process, and providing little incentive for organizers and owners to improve their crowd management practices. Additionally, ad hoc crowd management efforts on the part of a few concerned promoters and venues have done little to reduce the risk of crowd-related injuries in cities and states as a whole. In this paper, I argue that state and local adoption of crowd management statutes is the only remaining solution that can effectively reduce the number of crowd crush injuries and fatalities in the United States each year. Because there are currently no such laws in this country, I propose a model statute that draws upon fundamental principles of crowd science in requiring event organizers and venue owners to take a series of relatively simple steps both in advance and during large gatherings that will drastically reduce the likelihood of crowd crush.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远离疯狂的人群:人群拥挤的法定解决方案
在美国,与人群有关的伤害和死亡发生的频率令人惊讶。近年来,在美国的音乐会、体育赛事、“破门者”销售、夜总会和大型节日中,人群成员遭受了重大伤害甚至死亡。虽然其中一些事件促使受害者对活动组织者和场地所有者提起疏忽诉讼,但事实证明,普通法在解决“人群拥挤”问题上是无效的。事实上,在这些案件中,法院一再为被告辩护,在这一过程中犯了一系列科学和法律上的错误,而且几乎没有激励组织者和所有者改进他们的人群管理做法。此外,一些相关的发起人和场馆的特别人群管理努力在降低城市和州整体人群相关伤害的风险方面收效甚微。在本文中,我认为州和地方采用人群管理法规是唯一剩下的解决方案,可以有效地减少美国每年的人群挤压伤害和死亡人数。由于我国目前还没有这样的法律,我提出了一个示范法规,它借鉴了人群科学的基本原则,要求活动组织者和场地所有者在大型集会之前和期间采取一系列相对简单的步骤,以大大减少人群拥挤的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1