Luis Aquino gave an interview to KTLA5, prompting additional questions on damages and the conduct of LAPD
On Saturday, May 31, the Dodgers released a statement regarding the concrete that fell on New York Yankees fan and Mexico City resident, Luis Ricardo Aquino:
“We had professionals and experts at Dodger Stadium this past weekend to examine the facility and ensure its safety,” Dodgers spokesperson Ally Salvage told The Times. “We will also be undertaking a longer-term review.”
On June 4, KTLA 5 released an interview with Mr. Aquino after the incident. In it, he described what happened after being hit by concrete at Dodger Stadium.
Initially, Mr. Aquino said that he thought someone threw the concrete at him before discovering it had fallen from above, before being attended to for his injuries.
“The first question the police asked me [was] if I had papers, and I said, ‘Yes, I am on my Visa.’ I had to give them my Visa and they took it from me. I am angry because I felt discriminated against,” he said. “The paramedics did treat me and checked my vitals, but everything seemed O.K.,” he said. “They asked if I wanted to go to a hospital, but this is not my country, so I did not feel comfortable.”
[emphasis added.]
Mr. Aquino stated that the incident left him with a fractured rib, with which he watched the rest of the game. In the interview, Mr. Aquino further said that he agreed not to file a complaint in exchange for some Dodgers merchandise before he returned to his seat.
Later, Dodgers personnel brought him a jersey, a couple of bracelets, and a Max Muncy bobblehead. Aquino said that there was no follow-up or apology from the team. While the Dodgers did install protective netting, there have been no further reports of subsequent injuries by concrete in Dodger Stadium since.
However, in his interview, Mr. Aquino brought up two issues that, if true, the Dodgers must immediately address publicly.
Papers, please
I am deeply troubled by an allegation made by Mr. Aquino in his interview. When we covered this story last time, I omitted discussing Mr. Aquino’s nationality for a simple reason: it did not matter.
The falling concrete would have caused injury, regardless of whether Mr. Aquino was American, Mexican, or any other nationality or immigration status.
Yet the first question the “police” allegedly asked Mr. Aquino at Dodger Stadium was not “Are you okay?” or “Where are you injured?” but rather, “Papers, please.” Now, it actually gets worse depending on who asked.
California has an immigration law, the California Values Act (SB 54), which generally limits the involvement of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement activities. As we have covered, the Dodgers have both uniformed Los Angeles Police Department officers present and off-duty officers working security at games at Dodger Stadium.
Mr. Aquino was visiting this country legally on a visa from Mexico.
Frankly, even if he were not, how does getting hit by concrete from a stadium give rise to anything remotely triggering an immigration inquiry? It would be one thing if an immigration agent questioned Mr. Aquino, but a regular police officer in California is prohibited under state law from enforcing federal immigration laws unless there is a federal warrant or a violent felon in custody.
Neither situation applies here: Mr. Aquino was a foreign national with a valid tourist visa who got hit by falling concrete.
I originally was going to say that the only way this situation gets worse is if a non-uniformed, off-duty LAPD officer moonlighting as stadium security did the questioning. We don’t know, but the possibility exists due to the security setup at the ballpark.
While the Dodgers do not travel to Toronto this year, the roster includes Venezuelan players, Miguel Rojas and Brusdar Graterol, and a Cuban player, Andy Pages.
While the travel ban does have an exemption for “any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State,” any non-immediate relative is out of luck.
The ramifications of the travel ban on the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, as well as the morality and scope of the order, fall outside the scope of this essay. Mr. Aquino’s second allegation must be discussed in greater detail.
Justice is not a lottery
Last time, I broke down the elements of a hypothetical premises liability claim under California law. I chose not to delve into the question of damages last time for two reasons.
First, I felt that question was wildly inappropriate considering that the incident just happened. Speculating about the costs of human harm is gross when no one knows exactly what the harm is yet.
Second, I was banking on the internet’s humanity not to act like gremlins. Most of the discourse I have seen follows the same sad line of “reasoning.”
The following sentence is worth repeating: Civil tort litigation is not a lottery.
Suppose a plaintiff proves all the elements of their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence at trial (more likely than not). In that case, compensatory damages are meant to make a plaintiff whole through compensation for injuries and/or recovery of lost wages.
Under California law, Civil Code § 3294 outlines when a plaintiff can recover punitive damages. Generally, never for a breach of contract, and the plaintiff has to prove by clear and convincing evidence (highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue) that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (all of which are defined in the statute).
One might ask when punitive damages are appropriate. For a perfect example, let us return to one of American history’s most misunderstood civil tort cases when Stella Liebeck burned herself while drinking McDonald’s coffee.
The lawsuit was twisted by lazy media and hacks like Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, and Toby Keith into a narrative that an epidemic of civil litigation was drowning American courtrooms. It wasn’t, and this narrative followed Liebeck for the rest of her life until her passing in 2004. (NSFW: Gore – skin graft at 4:17).
Part of the settlement agreement was that Liebeck was supposed to keep quiet about the case, which she did until her death. Again, the question of damages is wildly premature in this matter, and to assume liability at this point is both wildly inappropriate and sensational.
We will provide updates if there are any further developments as they become available.