Blue Man Group named in Lawsuit -- Unnecessary Roughness
In the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court by Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, Plaintiff Jim Srodon says the Blue Man actors used the "esophagus cam" to project an image of Srodon's mouth and throat onto a large screen for the audience's amusement.
The lawsuit alleges the Blue Man actors circled him, held his neck and arms and "forced his head back" to insert the camera. It claims he was restrained from removing the camera from his mouth."At the time the 'esophagus cam' was inserted into plaintiff's mouth, it was covered in food, liquid and grime from the Briar Street Theatre floor, including the thick blue paint used to cover the actors' faces," the lawsuit said.
Reaction to this lawsuit has been mixed. There have been very many negative responses, partly due to the wild popularity the Blue Man Group enjoys. R&B recognizes that there are two sides to the story whick is why we are publishing BMG's responses and those of their supporters. One Chicago Tribune reader said:
I was disappointed by your recent article about the Mr. Srodon suing Blue Man Group. It was the most ridiculous thing I've read in the Tribune since the last ridiculous thing I read there. We can only hope the judge throws out the case as the most absurd, senseless, pointless and nonsensical lawsuit in the history of frivolous lawsuits. With any luck, the judge will also jail Mr. Srodon and his lawyer for sheer stupidity.
The R&B response was as follows:
I appreciate your opinions. Since you seem to have some knowledge with respect to entertainment and litigation, you are aware that is it impossible to “try” a case in the media within the 2 to 3 minutes maximum that you are allocated. Instead, if you knew the information that I have and were aware of all of the circumstances, I am sure you would either change your opinion or, at a minimum, reserve your opinion until you heard all of the evidence. A trial in the media is nearly impossible. The value of the media is to make the public aware of a hazard or potential danger. You are aware that there have been instances of spectator injury recently in the news. Two that come to mind relate to the Monster Truck that struck many innocent bystanders during a show or the hockey puck that struck a little girl at a game and killed her. In both instances, changes were made to prevent such tragedies again. If my client had been killed would your opinions have been different? This lawsuit is as much against BMG as it is a warning to the entire industry that spectators should not be subjected to shock entertainment unless they are aware of the circumstances and specifically assume the risk. I don’t think that can be said in this case. Nonetheless, your comments are respected and noted. I hope one day that you will realize that no one has the right to be judged until all of the evidence has been heard. At such time, win or lose, we can at least say that we did it according to our constitution. Thank you.
