Interesting suit. Plaintiff claims Replay should have known folks would park in an overflow lot (which Replay apparently might not even own) and should have maintained/illuminated/cordoned off uneven areas of said lot. I would expect Replay's defense would include the simple provision that people park on other lots at their own risk, and the proper course of action would have been for Jill to park elsewhere and use the PAPA shuttles or other transportation to the site. Adequate onsite parking has never been promised by Replay and they do advertise their shuttles as a solution.

No one forced Jill to choose to park in an unlit, third-party lot that night. I would hope this case does not make it to trial, but if it does, I think Replay prevails.

Yep... It looks like plaintiff is trying to claim Replay was negligent by holding a large public event with inadequate parking, and looking the other way when folks parked up all the surrounding lots. I do remember in the past seeing at least one warning from PAPA about the neighboring lots not necessarily being safe due to falling debris or other issues.

It's your employers fault because you aren't able to walk on slightly uneven ground? Why is it someone else's fault that you did not look down and avoid a 3" hole in the ground?

But you have eyes, and if you're watching where you walk, you'd know not to step in a hole, right? I mean, the hole wasn't covered or hidden, and your employer wasn't asking you to carry something at the time that would have obstructed your vision, correct?

This case is trickier than just trip/fall. The lot that plaintiff injured herself in was not owned by Replay, and in fact plaintiff has sued both Replay and Augusta, the owner of the lot. Page 4 claims that Replay was in complete control of this lot during the competition. If there indeed was a formal agreement in place for Replay to use this space for overflow parking, plaintiff may have basis for claim. If Replay had no agreement for use of the lot and plaintiff is claiming Replay negligence for simply holding an event with inadequate parking (but with a tempting lot next door), I think Replay and Augusta prevail. Defendant had multiple choices for transportation and did not need to park in an unsanctioned lot.

I don't like this suit because everyone whose ever gone to PAPA HQ knows the roads and lots are complete crap, and we (myself included) park the place up anyway because.. well, we want to. Even if this was first trip for plaintiff, it is impossible to get into that lot, day or night, and NOT encounter numerous potholes and bumps before exiting the car. This wasn't an open manhole or hidden trap or anything out of the ordinary, it was a simple pothole. Watch where you walk and you won't step in them, and if it's dark, use a light. Personal responsibility, folks. I feel real bad for plaintiff's injury, but to blame other people for stepping in an obvious hole after deliberately choosing to park in a hole-filled lot.. just rubs me the wrong way.

Parking is a convenience and courtesy for customers, and is certainly not a requirement for conducting business. Carpooling, shuttles, public transportation, taxis, ubers/lyfts.. lots of ways to get to a business like PAPA HQ without having to park.

CHARIZARD used POT HOLE. It's super effective!