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
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.

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.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.