A Stitch in Haste

This may be either one of the most frivolous or one of the the least frivolous lawsuits of all time:

Audience participation is a staple of the Blue Man Group. But apparently, one audience member attending the Chicago show believes cast members took their surreal antics too far by forcing a video camera down his throat during a performance in October 2006.

James Srodon of California filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the group. In the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, 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.

I've never attended a BMG show, but I was once the victim of tortious "audience participation" at a similar show, De La Guarda. Long story short: I had gone straight from work and was wearing a suit, and was targeted for a "hug" by a performer dripping with wet toilet paper. I was not amused. The theater offered to pay my dry cleaning bill. Fin.

So I'm not quick to reject allegations of audience abuse at such an event. But forcible restraint and insertion of camera down into a non-volunteer's mouth? Do they really do that at BMG shows? Those who have attended performances please leave a comment.

If it happened exactly as Srodon describes (big "if"), then BMG doesn't have a leg to stand on. No waiver or consent defense would ever get past a judge, no matter what's printed on a ticket or in a Playbill or what announcements are made beforehand. Maybe if they show a video when the show starts: "If you remain in the theater, then this may happen to you..." Again, anyone familiar with what if any warnings are provided at the shows?

The only question would be one of punitive damages, which under common law (I can't speak to Illinois state law) would clearly be warranted for such a battery (again, taking the plaintiff's version as true). I'd probably be eager as a juror to shove some punitives down BMG's throat. How about you?

---

Via Fark, where several commenters insist that the "esophagus cam" video is prerecorded. I'm not sure how that's dispositive or even probative to a claim of tortious battery. Contrary to the media report, it's not entirely clear that the plaintiff is alleging that the camera was forced down his throat -- only into his mouth.

As for the "what's the big deal" defense: That's easy to say when it's not your mouth. You take the plaintiff as you find him; if he happens to be thin-skinned with no sense of humor, then so be it. Finally, one Fark commenter suggests the the lawsuit might simply be a publicity stunt by the group itself — "guerrilla marketing," etc.)

---

By way of comparison, here's another "artist" (defined very loosely) who is careful to obtain consent for her "art" (defined very loosely).