The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to review a state Superior Court ruling that said the Philadelphia Eagles and the team's security contractor were not responsible for paying more than $700,000 to a Dallas Cowboys fan who was roughed up by Eagles fans at their home stadium.

The allocatur denial reinforces Pennsylvania's high bar for plaintiffs in premises liability cases—a bar that one Superior Court judge called "fundamentally unfair."

Patrick Pearson sued the Philadelphia Eagles LLC, the owner of the Eagles' stadium (Eagles Stadium Operators LLC), and the security agency handling public safety during the Dec. 14, 2014, Eagles-Cowboys game for negligence. Pearson went to the game decked out in Cowboys attire, and was jeered while in line for the restroom. He alleged he was subsequently attacked by unruly Eagles fans.

In a brief seeking permission to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Pearson argued that the Superior Court's upending of the verdict sets a dangerous precedent by imposing an unreasonable burden of proof for plaintiffs.

"The Superior Court's holding paves the way for fans of opposing teams that enter rival sporting venues in this commonwealth to become targets of assaults, physical intimidation, and abuse with impunity," Pearson's lawyer, Robert Birch, wrote in the petition for allowance of appeal. Birch declined to comment beyond the argument laid out in the document.

"The Superior Court determined that despite evidence that the Eagles had knowledge of fights and altercations fueled by intoxication in the restrooms and never came to Pearson's aid, it was Pearson's burden to show multiple assaults within some unspecified timeframe. The Superior Court never stated how many assaults would have satisfied this new burden," the petition said.

But in a one-sentence order issued March 16, the Supreme Court denied allocatur in the case.

Andrew Connolly of Post & Schell, who represents the defendants, and Colmar-based solo attorney Birch could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a published Oct. 11 ruling, a three-judge Superior Court panel vacated the $700,000 award handed down by a Philadelphia jury, rejecting Pearson's argument that the defendants were negligent because there was no guard posted at the restroom.

Pearson had attempted to rely on the state Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in Feld v. Merriam, which held that property owners are liable to business invitees for harm caused by the foreseeable criminal actions of third parties if the property owner agreed to undertake or voluntarily undertook a duty to provide such protection.

"Where a property owner knows or has reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons that would harm invitees, the property owner 'may be under a duty to take precautions against it, and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of servants to afford a reasonable protection,'" Superior Court Judge Mary Murray wrote in the court's majority opinion. "In this case, however, the record does not support the trial court's conclusion that appellants were on notice that violent assaults regularly took place in the stadium's restrooms or that appellants conducted their security program without reasonable care."

Murray was joined by Senior Judges Eugene Strassburger III and Dan Pellegrini.

But Strassburger penned a concurring opinion "to reiterate what I have noted for 25 years: Pennsylvania law in the area of premises liability is fundamentally unfair to injured customers."

Quoting from his own concurring opinion in the 2012 case Goodman v. Chester Downs and Marina, Strassburger said, "'Equitable considerations should allow a plaintiff to recover under factual situations such as this. Where a customer has sustained injuries although neither the customer nor the [business] has behaved negligently, it would be more fair to hold the [business] responsible than to place the risk on the consumer. [Injuries] such as these are foreseeable risks of conducting this type of business, and commercial businesses are in a far better financial position to absorb the cost by spreading the risk among thousands of customers.'"

After the incident, Pearson was sent to the hospital for a fractured ankle, which required two surgeries. In his claims against the security company, Apex, Pearson alleged the agency negligently failed to properly ensure the safety of attendees.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Teresa Sarmina previously urged the Superior Court to affirm her denial of the defendants' request to vacate the judgment.

"It is foreseeable that, at a sporting event, when fans are drinking and engaging in enthusiastic banter and cheering for their teams, tensions may run high," Sarmina said in her opinion. "This was actually anticipated by defendant Apex, which had deployed undercover operatives wearing jerseys like appellee's throughout the stadium on the day appellee was attacked, to identify Eagles fans who were harassing fans of the opposing team."

She continued, "It was foreseeable that altercations could take place in the bathroom, and appellants own agent was aware of this, as evidenced by … testimony at trial. It was reasonable for the jury to conclude that, because appellant failed to provide a safe environment to appellee, and because he was attacked in one of the blind spots to the security provided—the bathroom—his injuries were proximately caused by their negligence."

But Murray said the fact that Apex deployed undercover operatives to quell potential altercations between Eagles and Cowboys fans showed that the company "both recognized this danger and addressed the issue." Murray added that the record showed that violent altercations specifically in the stadium bathrooms were actually rare occurrences.