[RealtorTommy]

My opinion can go both ways and not knowing "all" info I will just claim this....

There's not much one can do when a ambulance chaser looks to the ADA to line their pockets. There many law groups that go after mom and pop businesses because the business settles 99 percent of the time. I serious about this as they visit every building in the town and see what they can find. If your doorway is one inch to narrow and "grandfathered" in the building code you will still get sued and have no recourse. Giving access to the impaired or disabled is important and should be. Most owners can and will do there best to afford their customers full access. But witch hunts just to gain money pisses me off.

Now if the owner has a just cause for safety and can prove it...more power to him.

This post has been edited by RealtorTommy: 11 January 2012 - 03:47 PM

[sameagol26]

That's bullshit they would sue over that. If I was a ref, I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to "babysit" a blind person playing.I mean, blind people have overcome many things but it seems somewhat unsafe allowing a blind person to play when it's mainly a visually oriented game.

This post has been edited by sameagol26: 11 January 2012 - 03:59 PM

[woodsballer414]

90% of your minds input is from sight. In most states it is illegal for blind people to even own a gun (for obvious reasons). If blind people want to play that bad let them play and see how long they'll be there. The USA's legal system is so fucked up you can get sued for calling a woman "ma'am" but if she breaks your nose she can sue you for "giving tempted purpose to harm". This has happened to me and SHE WON. It's sad how many stupid little laws we have yet, how many major things you can do that is a loophole in the law.

[thiswonthurt]

Here's the filing for those who haven't read it.

Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1 Filed 12/12/11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Northern Division)

BLIND INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OF MARYLAND
3345 Washington Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21227
Baltimore County

MARCO CARRANZA
130 M Street, Apartment 806
Washington, D.C. 20002
District of Columbia

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
JAMES KONECHNE
1102 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21227
Baltimore County
and
RONALD CAGLE
14 Dartmouth Drive
Lewes, Delaware 19958
Sussex County

AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND THE MARYLAND WHITE CANE LAW
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-3562
ROUTE 40 PAINTBALL PARK
11011 Pulaski Highway
White Marsh, Maryland 21162-1813
Baltimore County

Serve on Resident Agent:
Miriam Maliszewski 2733 Ady Road
Forest Hill, Maryland 21050-1805

Plaintiffs,

Plaintiffs Marco Carranza, James Konechne, and Ronald Cagle (hereinafter “Individual Plaintiffs”) and Blind Industries and Services of Maryland (“BISM”) file this Complaint against Defendant Route 40 Paintball Park for civil rights violations and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1. This action seeks to put an end to civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the blind. By denying blind persons the opportunity to participate in paintball activities, Defendant is excluding blind persons from full and equal access to a public accommodation enjoyed by others without disabilities.
2. This case arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and the Maryland White Cane Law, Md. Code Ann., Human Services § 7-704.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) because of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391( because Defendant does business in this district and the acts constituting violations of the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law complained of occurred in this district.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff BISM is a statutorily-created nonprofit entity responsible for maintaining an education and training center for the blind. BISM’s mission includes both helping the blind reach their potential for living and working independently and enhancing the public’s attitudes concerning blindness. BISM and its constituents have long been actively involved in promoting independence for the blind, including equal access to places of public accommodation. BISM constituents would
participate in Defendant’s paintball activities but for Defendant’s denial of service. BISM sues on behalf of its constituents, as well as in furtherance of its extensive efforts and expenditure of resources in promoting two of its principal missions: independence of the blind and equal access for the blind. Defendant’s discriminatory policies frustrates these missions and results in the diversion of its resources to address Defendant’s discriminatory practices.
6. Marco Carranza is a citizen and resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Carranza is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Carranza was the Adult Services Manager at BISM. In the role of instructor, Mr. Carranza supervised blind individuals in all manner of training, including cane travel and other mobility skills. He enjoys paintball as a leisure activity.
7. Plaintiff James Konechne is a citizen of Baltimore County, Maryland and resides in Baltimore. Mr. Konechne is legally blind. He is a braille instructor at BISM. In his free time, Mr. Konechne is a paintball enthusiast and has enjoyed playing the sport throughout the country.
8. Plaintiff Ronald Cagle is a citizen of Sussex County, Delaware and has a permanent residence in Lewes, DE. Mr. Cagle is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Cagle was a student and trainee at BISM. He has had experience playing paintball both while sighted and blind.
9. Route 40 Paintball Park (“the Park”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Baltimore County, Maryland.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10. The Park is a facility open to the public where enthusiasts of the sport of paintball participate in paintball matches against one another.
11. The Park organizes paintball matches, sets the rules, and arranges for referees to officiate the matches. The Park charges participants to use the fields on which the matches take place and also rents equipment and supplies.
12. The Park requires that participants fill out a “Waiver and Release of Liability” and that participants use safety equipment, such as goggles.
13. The sport of paintball is played on a field of predetermined bounds by opposing teams seeking to eliminate opposing team members by shooting them with air-propelled, paint-filled gelatin balls called paintballs while attempting to complete a stated objective, which varies by game.
14. As part of BISM’s adult CORE rehabilitation and training program, blind students must plan and execute a group social outing to demonstrate competency in mobility skills. One student selected an outing to play paintball and made the required reservation with the Park for Saturday, May 21, 2011 at noon.
15. On the morning of May 21, 2011, a group of two BISM instructors and six BISM students began their long walk to the Park, relying on their cane travel and other mobility skills to navigate their way to their final destination.
16. Having arrived at the Park at the appointed time, the Individual Plaintiffs checked in with the Park’s staff. The Individual Plaintiffs were dismayed when Park employees and Park owner, Miriam Maliszewski, told them that they would not be allowed to participate in any paintball matches because they were blind. Based on past experience with paintball matches, the Individual Plaintiffs explained how they would safely navigate the playing field and participate in the match as they had done at other paintball parks. The Park employees and owner renewed their refusal. The Individual Plaintiffs then told the Park employees and owner that the Maryland White Cane Law required that they be allowed to participate in paintball matches. The Park employees and owner, for a third time, refused to allow the Individual Plaintiffs to participate in a paintball match.
17. The Individual Plaintiffs then contacted the Baltimore County Police Department to report the Park’s refusal to allow them to participate in a paintball match, a misdemeanor violation of the
Maryland White Cane Law. The police arrived and attempted to mediate the dispute, but the Park persisted in its refusal of service.
18. On August 16, 2011, Officer Trageser issued a Baltimore County Police Department Crime Report (CC# 11-141-0783) for the Park’s violation of the Maryland White Cane Law.
19. On June 10, 2011, though not required to do so, the undersigned sent a letter to the Park owner requesting an opportunity to discuss an amicable resolution of the dispute arising from the Park’s violations of Individual Plaintiffs’ rights. As of this filing, the Park has not responded.
COUNT I (Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182)
20. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

21. Title III of the ADA guarantees that individuals with disabilities shall have full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.
22. Individual Plaintiffs are legally blind and are individuals with disabilities under the ADA.
23. The Park is a place of public accommodation under the ADA because it is both “a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation,” and a “a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181.
24. Paintball matches are a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation of the Park.
25. The Park is intentionally violating the ADA by refusing to allow the Individual Plaintiffs, because of their blindness, to participate in paintball matches, even after being notified that such a policy constitutes discrimination.
26. As a result of the Park’s wrongful conduct, BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, requiring Defendant to remedy the discrimination.
27. BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
COUNT II (Violation of the Maryland White Cane Law, Md. Code Ann., Human Servs. §§ 7-704, 707)
28. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.
29. The Maryland White Cane Law guarantees that individuals with disabilities receive full and equal rights and privileges with respect to places of public accommodations.
30. Individual Plaintiffs are legally blind and are individuals with disabilities under the Maryland White Cane Law.
31. The Park is a place of public accommodation because it is both a place of recreation and entertainment and is a place to which the general public is invited.
32. Paintball matches are a right or privilege of the Park.
33. The Park is intentionally violating the Maryland White Cane Law by refusing to allow the Individual Plaintiffs, because of their blindness, to participate in paintball matches, even after being notified that such a policy constitutes discrimination.
34. As a result of the Park’s wrongful conduct, BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Human Servs. § 7-707(, requiring Defendant to remedy the discrimination.
COUNT III (Declaratory Relief Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201)
35. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 6
C. § 12205; and
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided by 42 U.S.C.
36. BISM and the Individual Plaintiffs contend, and believe that the Park denies, that its policy of denying blind customers the opportunity to participate in paintball matches fails to comply with applicable laws including, the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law.
37. A judicial declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this court:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA and/or the Maryland White Cane Law;
B. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA and the Maryland White Cane Law;
D. Grant such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. December 12, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
__/s/ Gregory P. Care___________________ Stuart O. Simms, Bar No. 27090 Gregory P. Care, Bar No. 29060 Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410-962-1030 Fax: 410-385-0869 sos@browngold.com gpc@browngold.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
OJS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-1 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
© Attorney’s (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
DEFENDANTS
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff
’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant
’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
DEF
and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF
Citizen of This State ’ 1 Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State
CitizenorSubjectofa Foreign Country
’ 6 ’ 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 110 Insurance ’ 120 Marine ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 140 Negotiable Instrument ’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment ’ 151 Medicare Act
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
(Excl. Veterans) ’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits
’ 190 Other Contract ’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 196 Franchise
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 245 Tort Product Liability ’ 290 All Other Real Property
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’ ’ ’
’
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
’ ’
400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce
460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service
850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange
875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410
890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice
950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Appeal to District ’ 7 Judge from
V. ORIGIN
’ 1 Original Proceeding
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from
State Court Appellate Court
’ 4
Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict Reopened another district Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY
DATE
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
JURY DEMAND:
DOCKET NUMBER
’ Yes
’ No
’ 1
of Business In Another State ’ 3 ’ 3 ForeignNation
CONTRACT
TORTS
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY
’ 310 Airplane ’ 315 Airplane Product
Liability ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
’ 330 Federal Employers’ Liability
’ 340 Marine ’ 345 Marine Product
Liability ’ 350 Motor V ehicle
’ 355 Motor V ehicle Product Liability
’ 360 Other Personal Injury
PERSONAL INJURY
’ 362 Personal Injury - Med. Malpractice
’ 365 Personal Injury - Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability
’ 610 Agriculture ’ 620 Other Food & Drug ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 630 Liquor Laws
’ 640 R.R. & Truck ’ 650 Airline Regs. ’ 660 Occupational
Safety/Health ’ 690 Other
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark
LABOR
SOCIAL SECURITY
’ 710 Fair Labor Standards Act
’ 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations ’ 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act
’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 791 Empl. Ret. Inc.
Security Act
’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 865 RSI (405(g))
REAL PROPERTY
CIVIL RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609
’ 441 V oting ’ 442 Employment ’ 443 Housing/
Accommodations ’ 444 Welfare
’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - Employment
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - Other
’ 440 Other Civil Rights
’ 510 Motions to V acate Sentence Habeas Corpus:
’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition
IMMIGRATION
’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 463 Habeas Corpus -
Alien Detainee ’ 465 Other Immigration
Actions
Magistrate (specify) Judgment
(See instructions):
JUDGE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the
Defendant
To: (Defendant’s name and address)
) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
__________ District of __________
) ) )
v. ) Civil Action No. )
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Date:
Case 1:11-cv-03562-WMN Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
’ Ipersonallyservedthesummonsontheindividualat(place )
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual)
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date)
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ’ Other (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $
; or
, who is
; or
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
on (date) ; or
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
. .


All content in above posts appears like in the original document except for a few *'s that cluttered the document in the forum format. If you believe I have edited this document unjustly please feel free to contact me and I will send you the original PDF I took it from.

[kiriyama9000]

Thanks for posting this!

It'd be a huge shame if this business were to fall apart because of such a silly case.
I drove by this past Saturday and the parking lot was pretty full.

There aren't many fields around Baltimore any more.
Route 40 and Pasadena Paintball Park are the only 2 fields within a 20-30 minute drive of the city.

This post has been edited by kiriyama9000: 30 January 2012 - 12:14 PM

[UV Halo]

Quote

6. Marco Carranza is a citizen and resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Carranza is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Carranza was the Adult Services Manager at BISM. In the role of instructor, Mr. Carranza supervised blind individuals in all manner of training, including cane travel and other mobility skills. He enjoys paintball as a leisure activity.

7. Plaintiff James Konechne is a citizen of Baltimore County, Maryland and resides in Baltimore. Mr. Konechne is legally blind. He is a braille instructor at BISM. In his free time, Mr. Konechne is a paintball enthusiast and has enjoyed playing the sport throughout the country.

8. Plaintiff Ronald Cagle is a citizen of Sussex County, Delaware and has a permanent residence in Lewes, DE. Mr. Cagle is legally blind. At all times relevant to this action, Mr. Cagle was a student and trainee at BISM. He has had experience playing paintball both while sighted and blind.

So, just what was I saying about "legally blind"?

UV Halo, on 20 December 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

...so many folks in this thread are assuming that the individuals who wanted to play were fully blind (vice legally blind and capable of receiving the aid of one of these organizations). If they weren't fully blind, I can easily see these folks playing as a private group.

Now granted the Jury isn't in on this case yet but, if the plaintiffs are opening with these statements, and are willing to take the stand to describe how they've been playing paintball at other parks, this will probably be an open and shut case, and not in the field's favor.

Here's something I remember about human vision, back in the late 90s, I was very interested in Virtual Reality and I wore various goofy headgear contraptions meant to immerse me in the game. The resolution and optics of those games/systems were so poor that it could be said that if you saw that badly in real life, you would be considered "legally blind". I had no problem navigating the game world, and shooting other players. Further, consider this quote from wikipedia:

Quote

In North America and most of Europe, legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with corrective lenses—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m). In many areas, people with average acuity who nonetheless have a visual field of less than 20 degrees (the norm being 180 degrees) are also classified as being legally blind. Approximately ten percent of those deemed legally blind, by any measure, have no vision. The rest have some vision, from light perception alone to relatively good acuity.

"Legally Blind" is a pretty wide definition, and I'm willing to bet that some of those 90% would do just fine on a paintball field.

[thiswonthurt]

What I would like to know is what parks they play at. I've been following this for awhile on the other forums and several people who claim to have been there say they we belligerent and couldn't name any other place they played or gear they used. I'm betting when the discovery phase of this is over we will find out they've never played at an actual field. Maybe outlaw ball or something.

[No Mercy Ever]

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Your mileage may vary with use.

Here is one thing that I see out of this: A timeline. It's somewhat important.

May 21st, 2011 - Plaintiff's arrive at the paintball park to play, are told that they can't, try to reason with the park, still rebuked, call the police who try to arbitrate, and are rebuked for a third time.
August 16th, 2011 - Baltimore County Police issue a report that shows the incident, and steps taken to remedy it, before law enforcement are involved, as well as law enforcement's involvement. From here, although it is odd that it took almost three full months between the incident and issuance of a report, it can be believed that since this is a misdemeanor infraction, it was forwarded to the local District Attorney's office for further attention.
December 12th, 2011 - This lawsuit is filed.

It's odd that it took so long for a report, but in the almost four months, I would guess that since there is no mention of it, the local District Attorney is choosing to no pursue the case. Granted, there is probably no jail time involved, just large monetary fines, but still, a business that fails something as important as equal rights for people of disabilities is going to get a DA response, unless there is no real good reason to go after this. They probably still have enough time on the statute of limitations to go after the paintball park over this, but if the DA does not think that he can get a win, they aren't going to go after it, no matter how much a group of disabled individuals pester them otherwise. Unlike private attorney's, who do whatever and get paid win or lose, DA's and their ADA's that they have working for them, don't waste time on something that they don't think that they can win, or at least get some kind of out of court settlement/plea bargain. Otherwise, they get to lose a job. And government jobs are awefully nice.

It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.

[smoke14]

Oh my, you have got to be kidding me..

[thiswonthurt]

No Mercy Ever, on 30 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Your mileage may vary with use.

Here is one thing that I see out of this: A timeline. It's somewhat important.

May 21st, 2011 - Plaintiff's arrive at the paintball park to play, are told that they can't, try to reason with the park, still rebuked, call the police who try to arbitrate, and are rebuked for a third time.
August 16th, 2011 - Baltimore County Police issue a report that shows the incident, and steps taken to remedy it, before law enforcement are involved, as well as law enforcement's involvement. From here, although it is odd that it took almost three full months between the incident and issuance of a report, it can be believed that since this is a misdemeanor infraction, it was forwarded to the local District Attorney's office for further attention.
December 12th, 2011 - This lawsuit is filed.

It's odd that it took so long for a report, but in the almost four months, I would guess that since there is no mention of it, the local District Attorney is choosing to no pursue the case. Granted, there is probably no jail time involved, just large monetary fines, but still, a business that fails something as important as equal rights for people of disabilities is going to get a DA response, unless there is no real good reason to go after this. They probably still have enough time on the statute of limitations to go after the paintball park over this, but if the DA does not think that he can get a win, they aren't going to go after it, no matter how much a group of disabled individuals pester them otherwise. Unlike private attorney's, who do whatever and get paid win or lose, DA's and their ADA's that they have working for them, don't waste time on something that they don't think that they can win, or at least get some kind of out of court settlement/plea bargain. Otherwise, they get to lose a job. And government jobs are awefully nice.

It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.

I'm kind of hoping there is a law on the books that says blind people can't own or operate projectile weapons which will make this an easy case.

smoke14, on 30 January 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Oh my, you have got to be kidding me..

No no this is really happening.

[No Mercy Ever]

thiswonthurt, on 30 January 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I'm kind of hoping there is a law on the books that says blind people can't own or operate projectile weapons which will make this an easy case.

If there was, it would probably have negated the lawsuit.

[thiswonthurt]

No Mercy Ever, on 30 January 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

thiswonthurt, on 30 January 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I'm kind of hoping there is a law on the books that says blind people can't own or operate projectile weapons which will make this an easy case.

If there was, it would probably have negated the lawsuit.

That's why I'm hoping for it. This is just a civil filing and not the actual court case.

[UV Halo]

No Mercy Ever, on 30 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

...
It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.

I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).

[No Mercy Ever]

thiswonthurt, on 30 January 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

That's why I'm hoping for it. This is just a civil filing and not the actual court case.

If the law existed, it would not make it to a civil filing. It costs money for a lawyer to file a lawsuit. If a law existed that prohibited the ownership and/or usage of a projectile device by a person who is legally blind, that would be an automatic win for the defendant. Which means that the lawyer and it's clients are out of money that they have no chance of making back. Lawyers don't like to have a situation like that happen, because they get barely anything out of a client for a payday.

UV Halo, on 30 January 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).

We have the detail that states specifically how many people were in their group (8, two instructors/staff members and six students), and that they used canes. It does not state that half of them had canes, or that two of them had canes (You have to believe that there was at least two canes, since it is stated in plural), so you have to believe that all of them had canes. There is no mention that any of them are legally blind, and not totally blind, even when they are talking about how they tried to play. They did not use the argument that they can see enough to be able to see what they are shooting at, or that they could see enough to get around a course without the aid of a "seeing eye dog" (Joke). There is no mention of the level of blindness that they all suffer from, but there is mention (I believe through a newspaper article that someone else quoted) that at least one of the people did have sight, and lost it. Seeing as how the federal government is where that wiki info comes from (20/200 or the 20 degree acuity) you can believe that most likely, since there is mention of canes, it wasn't the acuity that was the issue.

The other interesting thing, out of the eight people, only three are involved in the lawsuit, the two instructors, and a trainee/student who had normal sight at some point in time of his life, and lost it. So one has to wonder about the other five individuals, and why they aren't a part of the suit as plaintiffs. I am sure that they will be involved as witnesses for the plaintiff's.

Most likely, they were just lazy, and didn't want to deal with the situation, rather than on any kind of a legal or semi-legal basis. And insurance probably didn't even come into their heads until after the fact. Which is why I am sure that they have not responded to the letter that was sent to them back in June.

[AmateurBaller]

UV Halo, on 30 January 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

No Mercy Ever, on 30 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

...
It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.

I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.

[UV Halo]

AmateurBaller, on 30 January 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.

Thanks for the update- it's good to hear that they've made some improvements. Still surprising that they allow barrel plugs vice covers. I'm guessing they don't have netting around some of the fields anymore?

[kiriyama9000]

I'm thinking about heading there the next time I go out. I haven't been there since '05 or '06.

[No Mercy Ever]

AmateurBaller, on 30 January 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.

Funny, it has been specifically stated that the whole "blind firing rule" does not apply to what happened, and why this lawsuit has been initiated. The plaintiffs never got to the orientation to hear said rule, so they could not make a claim that it made fun of them, or whatever. But the part that I am waiting to hear about is if the public definition applies or not. It sets a precedent to the whole "Management has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" that has been used for quite a long time, by more businesses than can be counted by alot of people.

The field might not win this case, and if they lose, they may not be able to afford to appeal it. But that is rather a dangerous precedent for every other business, as well as private clubs and schools. That would mean that anyone could attend Harvard. They could not refuse to allow you to attend the college because your grades aren't good enough.

[thiswonthurt]

So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

This post has been edited by thiswonthurt: 31 January 2012 - 10:21 AM

[UV Halo]

No Mercy Ever, on 31 January 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

Funny, it has been specifically stated that the whole "blind firing rule" does not apply to what happened, and why this lawsuit has been initiated. The plaintiffs never got to the orientation to hear said rule, so they could not make a claim that it made fun of them, or whatever. But the part that I am waiting to hear about is if the public definition applies or not. It sets a precedent to the whole "Management has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" that has been used for quite a long time, by more businesses than can be counted by alot of people.

The field might not win this case, and if they lose, they may not be able to afford to appeal it. But that is rather a dangerous precedent for every other business, as well as private clubs and schools. That would mean that anyone could attend Harvard. They could not refuse to allow you to attend the college because your grades aren't good enough.

Actually, the laws in this country regulate who management can refuse to do business with. For example, race, gender, and in this specific case, the Americans with Disabilities Act (Federal), and Maryland's White Cane Law. Now, in practice, if a manager refuses to do business with any of those aforementioned groups, he best not reveal his intent because it would condemn him in a court of law.

thiswonthurt, on 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Ok so reread this for the X time today and was wondering if they went to a shooting range and demanded be allowed to fire a gun and the owner refused them would anyone argue? It says some thing to the effect of if a business is open to the public it has to allow disabled people reasonable access. If it isn't reasonable to let the fire a gun using metal rounds why is it reasonable to let them use one that fires paint?

Think about it this way- The plaintiffs are three "Legally Blind" individuals. This is a relevant statistic about those classified as "Legally Blind":

Quote

Approximately ten percent of those deemed legally blind, by any measure, have no vision. The rest have some vision, from light perception alone to relatively good acuity.

Obviously I wouldn't want those at the "light perception alone" group but, I'm guessing that at the other end of the range, folks are well able to identify a human being at 75 ft and tell if he/she has their paintball gun up in the air. I wouldn't even expect them to be able to make out the presence of a barrel bag because I get often get shot by perfectly sighted folks even though I have a bright red barrel bag on my gun, in the air (not talking about walking into a firefight- just newbs who shooting whatever moves).