Attorneys for country duo Sugarland said concertgoers were at least partly to blame for injuries suffered in a stage collapse,
drawing a sharp reaction from fans Tuesday and prompting the band's manager to issue a statement criticizing the finger-pointing.
Members of the band expressed shock and sadness after last summer's stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair killed seven
people and injured dozens more.
But in their response to a civil lawsuit, the band's attorneys said injured fans "failed to exercise due care for
their own safety" and contended some or all of their injuries "resulted from their own fault."
The comments outraged Haley Waggoner of Cincinnati, who was in the front row with her twin sister when the collapse happened
and suffered a concussion that caused headaches and other problems for weeks.
"It disgusts me," said Waggoner, who has attended eight or nine Sugarland shows. "Through this whole process,
I don't feel like the band cares that much about fans."
The band's attorneys also called the high winds that toppled the stage rigging an "act of God" and denied the
band had any responsibility for the stage construction or to warn fans.
Waggoner said while the band couldn't control the weather and didn't build the stage, she believes Sugarland could
have done more to warn concertgoers of the impending danger. She said she'll never see them live again.
"If they don't believe in us for something that isn't our fault, then I don't want to support them,"
she said.
Indianapolis attorney Carl Brizzi, who is representing the widow of Glenn Goodrich, a security guard killed in the collapse,
said he was outraged that the band tried to distance itself from the tragedy.
"Sugarland has engaged in a public relations campaign to put the best light on its role in the avoidable tragedy,"
Brizzi said in a statement. "And this spin-doctoring of Sugarland's role in the case is both offensive and outlandish."
Sugarland attorney James H. Milstone would not elaborate Tuesday on the response to the civil lawsuit. But the band's
manager issued a statement in which the duo tried to distance themselves from the claims in court documents.
"Sadly when a tragedy occurs, people want to point fingers and try to sensationalize the disaster," Sugarland said
in a statement Gail Gellman issued to The Associated Press. "The single most important thing to Sugarland are their fans.
Their support and love over the past nine years has been unmatched. For anyone to think otherwise is completely devastating
to them."
Another court document, however, casts doubt on the band's claim that its fans come first. In a Jan. 16 deposition on
a lawsuit against the company that built the stage rigging, Indiana State Fair Commission Executive Director Cindy Hoye testified
that Sugarland resisted delaying the start of the concert despite threatening weather. Hoye said the band expressed concerns
about how a delay would affect the time lead singer Jennifer Nettles needed to warm up and complicate the band's travel
to its next show.
Sugarland tour manager Hellen Rollens told IOSHA investigators that there was no discussion of delaying the show.
The band's legal response has clearly been designed to shift blame away from the band and back to fair officials, the
company that erected the stage rigging and others. An Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration Investigation
cited the fair, Mid-America Sound Corp. and the stagehands' union for violations in connections with the deaths of Goodrich
and Nathan Byrd, a stagehand killed when the rigging collapsed.
Two other investigations examining the engineering of the structure and the state's response are pending.
The state has already paid out $5 million, the maximum allowed under Indiana law, to victims and their families. State lawmakers
are considering adding another $5 million to $10 million to that to cover medical bills for those who suffered long-term injuries,
but even that wouldn't be enough to cover future medical costs for the most seriously injured.
That makes Sugarland a natural focus for litigation.
It's common for bands to be named in lawsuits after injuries or deaths at a show. For example, families of the dead and
injured filed 33 lawsuits against The Who after a 1979 stampede in Cincinnati. The Who settled out of court for a total of
$2.1 million, plus an undisclosed sum for the family of one victim.
But one attorney involved in the Sugarland lawsuit said the band's response was strange.
"It's unusual to put the blame on victims," South Bend attorney Jeff Stesiak said Tuesday. "The concert
wasn't canceled and they weren't told to leave. I can't imagine what the victims did to be at fault."
He disputed the Sugarland attorney's claim that an "open and obvious danger" existed before the collapse.
"An open and obvious danger is more like walking along a road and seeing a downed power line and walking over it anyway.
The storm wasn't like that," Stesiak said.
The blame game isn't likely to end soon, even as lawmakers and fair officials work to prevent future incidents. A plan
to require inspections of all large, temporary outdoor stages is advancing through the Legislature. And fair officials have
moved all of this year's concerts indoors.
Ultimately, a jury may decide where fault lies. Sugarland's attorneys have requested a jury trial in the civil lawsuit.
Tina Williams of Indianapolis, who attended the concert, said there's plenty of blame to go around.
"Everyone has a little bit of ownership," Williams said. "Nobody can predict the weather. It was something
that happened. I'm not upset with Sugarland."

















IBJ Conversations
10 Comments
Add Comment
It is lousy public relations for Sugarland certainly, but the insurance company does not care about that as much as they care about maximizing the outcome for their side. Musicians tend to dispise the "business" part of the music business anyway. Having met Kristian Bush (pre-Sugarland) on several occasions back in the 90's when he was part of a duo called Billy Pilgrim, I can tell you he is a very decent guy, and likely was horrified at the statements made by the attorneys in question. But this incident is bigger than the parties...people got hurt or killed, they were involved with the tragedy, and attorneys for the injured will try to attach whoever has deep pockets, while attorneys for the parties being sued will try to limit same. That is just the way it works, and it seems inadequate and inhumane in situations like this. We feel bad for most all involved...the injured and deceased most, but also the band, the fair...no one wanted this to happen...it results in no good for anyone, except those collecting attorney fees. We don't like seeing someone make a living off of the misery of someone else, and the attorneys in this case are making it a little too obvious where their loyalty lies. They certainly could have staked out their legal grounds with a little more tact. But I think most people are not naive about the realities of this situation and where it is headed.
25% - state fair
60% - fair goers
5% - mother nature
10% - nobodies fault, crap happens and life is not fair
Generally, a big band like Sugarland would have an insurance policy to insure against these sort of claims. So, the attorneys are most likely chosen by the insurance company.
Unless an insurance company wants to go bankrupt and leave its policyholders in the lurch, it cannot just pay out any claim made against one of its insured.
Yes, people got injured, but that does not mean it is legally the fault of the band. In order to collect damages, you have to prove not only that you suffered damages, but that the party you are suing is legally the cause of your injury.
So, unless the insurance company wants to just admit liability and pay out whatever claims are being made against the band, something no insurance company would ever do, then in their legal pleadings they are going to take the position that the band is not responsible for the injuries and point to other parties that may be liable, or share liability.
This is how civil litigation matters generally unfold. And, the hand-wringing and Polly Anna attitudes of those unfamiliar with how civil litigation works, while perhaps understandable given their unfamiliarity with the process, does not change the nature of the system.