Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Entertainer Not Liable for Injured Security Guard

By Stan Soocher
July 29, 2010

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reinstated a jury verdict that dismissed a complaint against an entertainer who shoved a security guard, injured as a result, during a performance at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. Degenhardt v. Kirkorov, A-1075-09T1. While moving through the aisles during his show, Russian musical artist Philipp Kirkorov shoved security guard Thomas Rogers, who was trying to keep audience members away from Kirkorov. Rogers fell, hit his head, lost consciousness and sustained other personal injuries. After Rogers sued, the jury absolved Kirkorov of assault and battery and found that Rogers was more negligent for his injuries than was Kirkorov. The trial judge granted Rogers' motion for a new trial.

The appellate court noted, however: “Kirkorov testified that he did not purposely push Rogers, but rather that he came into contact with an obstacle in his path that he brushed away. Kirkorov also said that his path of travel is reviewed with security staff prior to the performance to ensure that they do not block the aisles. Kirkorov explained during his testimony that a predetermined path is necessary because his vision is impaired by the lighting during his performance and the focus of his attention is his audience.”

The court continued: “This testimony could readily lead a jury to conclude that Kirkorov did not intentionally shove Rogers. ' [T]he jury could rationally have found Rogers' conduct to be more negligent than Kirkorov's because Rogers was supposed to be paying close attention to what was occurring in the theater, including Kirkorov's whereabouts, and was not doing so.”


Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. He can be reached at [email protected] or via stansoocher.com.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reinstated a jury verdict that dismissed a complaint against an entertainer who shoved a security guard, injured as a result, during a performance at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City. Degenhardt v. Kirkorov, A-1075-09T1. While moving through the aisles during his show, Russian musical artist Philipp Kirkorov shoved security guard Thomas Rogers, who was trying to keep audience members away from Kirkorov. Rogers fell, hit his head, lost consciousness and sustained other personal injuries. After Rogers sued, the jury absolved Kirkorov of assault and battery and found that Rogers was more negligent for his injuries than was Kirkorov. The trial judge granted Rogers' motion for a new trial.

The appellate court noted, however: “Kirkorov testified that he did not purposely push Rogers, but rather that he came into contact with an obstacle in his path that he brushed away. Kirkorov also said that his path of travel is reviewed with security staff prior to the performance to ensure that they do not block the aisles. Kirkorov explained during his testimony that a predetermined path is necessary because his vision is impaired by the lighting during his performance and the focus of his attention is his audience.”

The court continued: “This testimony could readily lead a jury to conclude that Kirkorov did not intentionally shove Rogers. ' [T]he jury could rationally have found Rogers' conduct to be more negligent than Kirkorov's because Rogers was supposed to be paying close attention to what was occurring in the theater, including Kirkorov's whereabouts, and was not doing so.”


Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance. He can be reached at [email protected] or via stansoocher.com.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.