Question

Could you give me the answers for these from the case studies in Introduction to sport law 2nd edition:

Case 2.1

1. According to the court’s decision, what was the general rule pertaining to the liability of the baseball club for the acts of one of its players?

2. What risk management implications does this case have regarding event management? How can this case be utilized to further you understand of your future career in athletics?

Case 2.3

1. What was the duty of the university to spectators at their sports facilities? Does the spectator have any responsibilities?

2. Would the court’s decision have been different if the seat had been behind protective screening? Why or why not?

3. As a facility manager of a sports venue, what steps could you take to avoid this type of litigation?

Case 2.6

1. Does the fact that one student participant injured another in the instructional activity relieve the defendant college of liability? Explain.

2. Where does the court suggest finding standards in a case such as this?

3. How can those standards be utilized to further your understanding of issues related to collegiate athletics?

Case 2.10

1. Describe the concept of foreseeability and how it applies to this case.

2. Did the court suspect that a jury might conclude the layout of the gym presented a dangerous condition? What was it about the design that created this dangerous condition?

3. Given the outcome of this case, what risk management measures might you take to lessen your liability and improve the safety of the gymnasium?

Case 3.2

1. Describe the plan, if any, in place in the event of a medical emergency.

2. What two public policy considerations regarding the duty of care owed to an intercollegiate athlete did the court consider?

3. Name three risk management implications from this case and how they will apply to your future athletic career.

Case 3.4

1. Describe the reaction of the coaches and the treatment provided on the practice field and at the school.

2. Describe the plan, if any, that was in place in the event of a medical emergency.

3. Explain the court’s reasoning on the issue of causality.

Thank you very much

Answer 1

Could you give me the answers for these from the case studies in Introduction to sport law 2nd edition:

Case 2.1

1. According to the court’s decision, what was the general rule pertaining to the liability of the baseball club for the acts of one of its players?

Tha assault was neither incident to nor in the furtherance of his employer's business, and under the circumstances, we think that the Nashville Baseball Club, would not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and that the learned trial judge should have sustained the defendant's motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof.

It seems to be the general rule that a master is not liable for the willful acts of his servant who steps aside from his master's business and commits an act wholly independent and foreign to the scope of his employment. The applicable rule is stated in 57 CJS as follows: "It is not ordinary within the scope of a servant's authority to commit an assault on a third person, and in the absence of a nondelegable duty, such as that imposed by the relationship of carrier and passenger, or hotel and guest, if the assault committed by the servant was outside the scope of his employment and was made in a spirit of vicdictiveness or to gratify personal animosity or to carry  out an independent purposeof his own, the master is not liable, unless the conduct of the servant is ratified by the masters.."

Case 2.3

1. What was the duty of the university to spectators at their sports facilities? Does the spectator have any responsibilities?

When viewing the evidence in its totality the court finds that absence of a fence in front of the players bench constituted a dangerous condition that presented a foreseeable risk of injury to the spectators including Thomas, who was seated in a protected seating area adjacent thereto. The lack of any evidence that an accident of a same kind had happened before is of no moment since such an accident was reasonably to be anticipated.