Here there was plenty of evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude — as this jury did — that [Gavin] Cox was 100% responsible for his injuries,\u201d<\/strong> Jarvis added.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nCox sued MGM Grand and Copperfield, but lost a jury trial in 2018. His attorneys were seeking reimbursement for medical costs and related damages.<\/p>\n
Cox also wanted a new trial. But the Supreme Court by a 5-to-2 vote said no. Their 18-page decision was released last Thursday.<\/p>\n
Volunteered to Participate<\/h2>\n When reviewing the decision, Jarvis noted Cox could have stopped taking part in Copperfield\u2019s trick at any time. But Cox wanted to keep participating.<\/p>\n
It also was revealed during the trial, the casino-hotel housing the performance was being renovated. Cox\u2019s lawyers had argued their client slipped on a ramp because of its improper pitch and construction dust, Jarvis said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe ramp\/dust argument was the heart of the Coxes\u2019 liability theory. Yet the defense had no trouble poking holes in it,\u201d Jarvis said.<\/p>\n
The defense lawyers also presented videos in the trial. They showed Cox able to walk without assistance, which countered the plaintiff\u2019s claims Cox needed help to walk, Jarvis said.<\/p>\n
The Coxes\u2019 lawyers did just about everything wrong, starting with having a client who, while claiming one thing inside the courtroom, i.e., that he could not walk without assistance, was doing the exact opposite outside of the courtroom,\u201d<\/strong> Jarvis said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nHe also rejected a legal strategy used by Cox\u2019s attorneys. That includes choosing to split the issues of liability and damages into two phases.<\/p>\n
Need for Risk Manager<\/h2>\n When reviewing the decision, Jarvis said it shows how all businesses, including casinos, should have a risk manager to repeatedly check everything and eliminate potential dangers.<\/p>\n
\u201cMGM\u2019s risk manager missed the fact that MGM\u2019s ramp had a 5-degree slope, even though the code capped the slope at 4.76 degrees,\u201d Jarvis said.<\/p>\n
Anthony Cabot, Distinguished Fellow of Gaming Law\u00a0at UNLV\u2019s Boyd School of Law, who also was not connected to the case, told Casino.org<\/em> the litigation was largely based on whether the defendants \u201cshould have been allowed to show covert surveillance video of the plaintiff, showing him working without apparent trauma as the result of an accident.\u201d<\/p>\nThe decision is based on a narrow set of circumstances and does not have widespread application to the casino industry,\u201d<\/strong> Cabot added.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nCasino.org<\/em> reached out to Harris & Harris, the Las Vegas-based personal injury firm, which was one of the law firms representing Cox, for comments. The lawyers did not provide an immediate statement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld a jury verdict that neither David Copperfield nor the MGM Grand Las Vegas were financially responsible for the brain injuries allegedly suffered by an audience member. Gavin Cox, the injured man, voluntarily took part in a 2013 performance by the well-known illusionist. The incident took place in 2013. Cox […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":209941,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[62,60],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
MGM Grand, David Copperfield Sided by Nevada Supreme Court<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n