Even if an Arizona woman who was injured while pole-dancing at a sports bar should have known of the perils of pole-dancing, the owners of the bar may still be liable for failing to install the pole correctly.

ReAnna Hedrick's negligence lawsuit over her accident at a Famous Sam's bar in Mesa, Ariz., appears to be one of first impression since there is no case law that addresses a business owner's liability for a pole-dancing injury to a customer. Cases involving bar patrons who fell while dancing on a counter or while riding a mechanical bull may not be exactly on point.

According to Hedrick's complaint, Famous Sam's constructed two special stages as part of a “Ladies Night” promotion on Sept. 3, 2008. In the middle of one of the stages was a ten-foot-long dancer pole.

After watching “other patrons spin/dance” around the pole, the suit says, Hedrick “took a few turns” herself. But as she was spinning on the pole, “it suddenly, and without warning, came loose, broke, and fell away from the ceiling[,] causing ReAnna to crash to the floor.”

As the pole fell, Hedrick says, she tried to hold onto the jagged top, which sliced off the top of her ring finger. She also suffered “severe injuries to her left side and shoulder” from the impact with the floor.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, alleging Famous Sam's created an unsafe condition and an “unreasonable risk of harm” to patrons by failing to, among other things, properly assemble and erect the pole and install “some form of safety padding or netting in the event of dance pole failure.”

A New York judge recently dismissed the somewhat similar case of Valerie Morris, who slipped and fell, allegedly on something wet, while dancing on top of a bar counter. The doctrine of primary assumption of risk “applies to leisure activities, including dancing,” Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Michael D. Stallman said in Morris v. Red Rock West Saloon.

Famous Sam's could argue that Hedrick voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by dancing on the pole but her case is distinguishable from Morris because she fell from a piece of equipment specially installed by the bar. While Morris testified she knew that “things get spilled” on bar counters, Hedrick says she did not know of the “improper assembly” of the pole.

Mechanical bull cases are similar to Hedrick's in that they also involve equipment rather than standard bar furnishings. But bar patrons commonly sign waivers of liability before they ride mechanical bulls.

Last month, a New York judge found such a waiver enforceable in dismissing a case brought by a man who was thrown off a mechanical bull at the Johnny Utahs bar in Manhattan. The waiver said, “I understand that riding the Mechanical Bull can be dangerous, and that the risk of injury is significant.”

“The entertainment value -- and, indeed, the concept -- of bull riding becomes meaningless without the inherent possibility of falling off,” the Alabama Supreme Court noted in Lilya v. Greater Gulf State Fair, 855 So.2d 1049 (2003).

Hedrick's suit says she “socialized” at Famous Sam's for about two hours before going on the pole but even if she was intoxicated, she could still recover damages for negligent assembly and construction. In addition to her “unsafe condition” theory, she argues that the owners were negligent per se because they failed to obtain a permit to build the stage and pole.

By Matthew Heller
11/11/09