The IFC might be liable to Jennifer for creating a public nuisance, as Jennifer can show with the evidence of her community. IFC might argue that shutting down the stadium does not make good economic sense since the stadium provides an overwhelming amount of positive externalities, externalities that Jennifer also partakes in. Plus, Jennifer needs another action besides public nuisance to show that the harm is especially damaging to her. If she lived in the middle of nowhere, she might do whatever she wanted, but since she lives near the stadium and basks in its benefits, she shouldn't be able to hold them liable. All she really has is a values argument based on her strong sense of personal rights and the value of education over sports, which while admirable, is not likely to convince a judge, although it might sway a jury. She might point out if it happens that she has an action of trespass in the form of urine on her lawn. If she catches the micturator, then that micturactor is liable to her directly. But she then also has a cause of action against IFC because it was reasonably foreseeable to them that this would occur when they did not do enough with security to guard against such occurrences, such that IFC was negligent in their actions. The court is likely to uphold her claim in that situation and the stadium might be forced to purchase an injunction rather than pay damages.
Simon might be liable to Samir for the intentional tort of battery. As in Vosburg, he would be liable, if was held liable, for all of the ankle injury even if that wasn't what he had in mind in making his move because he went in with the intent of doing what seemed to be an unconsented-to touching. So the case would hinge on whether or not there was implied consent. The ordinary play was "rough" that day - Simon might say that Samir knew after the opening minutes that something like this might occur and implicitly consented by staying in the game. Simon might argue that unlike in Hackbart, Simon's action was during the normal course of the game, and although perhaps a rough move, leg swiping was expected during the course of a rough game. But ultimately, the court is likely to agree with Samir's counterargument that this was supposed to be a friendly match, an exhibition game, where this move was not expected to occur, even when the going got rough, that in fact, this move was beyond rough and into the realm of reckless. What is interesting though is that Samir might choose to sue Simon's team instead, under the doctrine of respondeat superior if Simon's pockets are not deep enough to cover Samir's lost damages if the injury is career-ending. Simon's team is liable for the actions of its employees when they are working within the scope of employment, which Simon certainly was doing here. Samir might argue that Simon's team was either negligent in screening or even knew of Simon's anger management issues and so need to be held accountable for Simon's actions.
The fans who threw the beer bottles at Simon might be liable to Simon for battery or at least assault. They knew what they were intentionally trying to cause Simon harm. They might argue that he implicitly consented by breaking Simon's ankle and that he could have reasonably foreseen that stuff would be thrown at him afterward because of his action. They might even argue third-party defense, saying that in trying to make sure that Samir would not be further injured by Simon they threw the bottles, a proportionate reaction. This would be a weak argument though since it wouldn't be reasonable for anyone to expect Samir to continue to beat up on Simon.
IFC might be liable to the injured fans for having a defective stadium design. IFC might argue that it was certainly foreseeable to them that a riot might break out since that's why they built the design in the first place, but is it fair to hold them to a standard beyond that of what a reasonable other stadium would have? Although the design was customary for stadiums, that is considered just a baseline level of safety and not a defense if there was a small thing that the IFC could have done to prevent the amount of harm, per Learned Hand. For a new stadium, it may not have been negligent overall but, yes, negligent at the margins for them not to research a better design for the stadium--we don't know, and that's why we might want to hold them liable under strict liability to make them find out. IFC might argue that we shouldn't make them raise prices for what is essentially insurance, but we want to force them to properly weigh the costs and benefits.
Were Samir to sue the team, the latter might have an argument that it did everything in its power to prevent this kind of harm - note that the referee’s (hired by the team) called the game very closely. This line of reasoning supports Simon's claim against Samir: it a "friendly" match, and the referees - the ones who designate the conduct of a given game - made this clear from the beginning.
What happened to Jennifer's claim of private nuisance? I don't think it is necessary for her to find the pisser. After the games people make lots of noise and are rowdy. I don't think we equate her with the egg shell plaintiff and I think she has a claim regardless of her neighbor’s indifference to the stench of urine and loud noise.
As per the stadium, one might want to throw in a sentence about the contractual agreement created each time a fan buys a ticket. Usually, on the back there is a waiver of sorts, something along the lines of "IFC shall not be responsible for any damage to person or property", etc.
While I don't think you can equate a stadium to a vaccine, we generally don't employ strict liability for instruments of social benefit (there was a day in class in which Clark specifically said a baseball stadium shouldn't have to build a big net around it to stop the rare ball from bashing a window or someone on the head. Clark was clear that he thought the negligence standard should apply. This being said, negligence claims abound – lack of security, the presence of bottles, etc).
Say you looked at Simon's breaking of Samir's ankle not through the lens of intentional torts but through negligence. Simon could argue Samir's primary assumption of risk as a defense. Neither player had a duty of care to the other except the duty to not recklessly or intentionally injure. (No duty --> primary assumption of risk) See Knight v. Jewett, which argues that imposing a duty of care on sports players would "chill the fervor." If Samir's injury was caused recklessly, that defeats Simon's primary assumption of risk defense and would not bar Samir's recovery.
Would it make a difference if Samir brought an action in battery (Simon's defense = consent) or negligence (Simon's defense = primary assumption of risk)?
I think he would win either way. I don't think ankle-breaking is either something soccer players consent to nor a risk they assume.
Couldn't Simon also sue the stadium owners for the fans throwing the bottles, expecially if the bought the beer from in side the stadium? Fans are act dumb expecially when drinking, seems negligent to give them projectiles which can be thrown from the stands and hit players. Plastic cups would be much safer. Even if it was brought from outside, shouldnt they be checking people and stoping them from bringing outside goods in?
4 comments:
The IFC might be liable to Jennifer for creating a public nuisance, as Jennifer can show with the evidence of her community. IFC might argue that shutting down the stadium does not make good economic sense since the stadium provides an overwhelming amount of positive externalities, externalities that Jennifer also partakes in. Plus, Jennifer needs another action besides public nuisance to show that the harm is especially damaging to her. If she lived in the middle of nowhere, she might do whatever she wanted, but since she lives near the stadium and basks in its benefits, she shouldn't be able to hold them liable. All she really has is a values argument based on her strong sense of personal rights and the value of education over sports, which while admirable, is not likely to convince a judge, although it might sway a jury. She might point out if it happens that she has an action of trespass in the form of urine on her lawn. If she catches the micturator, then that micturactor is liable to her directly. But she then also has a cause of action against IFC because it was reasonably foreseeable to them that this would occur when they did not do enough with security to guard against such occurrences, such that IFC was negligent in their actions. The court is likely to uphold her claim in that situation and the stadium might be forced to purchase an injunction rather than pay damages.
Simon might be liable to Samir for the intentional tort of battery. As in Vosburg, he would be liable, if was held liable, for all of the ankle injury even if that wasn't what he had in mind in making his move because he went in with the intent of doing what seemed to be an unconsented-to touching. So the case would hinge on whether or not there was implied consent. The ordinary play was "rough" that day - Simon might say that Samir knew after the opening minutes that something like this might occur and implicitly consented by staying in the game. Simon might argue that unlike in Hackbart, Simon's action was during the normal course of the game, and although perhaps a rough move, leg swiping was expected during the course of a rough game. But ultimately, the court is likely to agree with Samir's counterargument that this was supposed to be a friendly match, an exhibition game, where this move was not expected to occur, even when the going got rough, that in fact, this move was beyond rough and into the realm of reckless. What is interesting though is that Samir might choose to sue Simon's team instead, under the doctrine of respondeat superior if Simon's pockets are not deep enough to cover Samir's lost damages if the injury is career-ending. Simon's team is liable for the actions of its employees when they are working within the scope of employment, which Simon certainly was doing here. Samir might argue that Simon's team was either negligent in screening or even knew of Simon's anger management issues and so need to be held accountable for Simon's actions.
The fans who threw the beer bottles at Simon might be liable to Simon for battery or at least assault. They knew what they were intentionally trying to cause Simon harm. They might argue that he implicitly consented by breaking Simon's ankle and that he could have reasonably foreseen that stuff would be thrown at him afterward because of his action. They might even argue third-party defense, saying that in trying to make sure that Samir would not be further injured by Simon they threw the bottles, a proportionate reaction. This would be a weak argument though since it wouldn't be reasonable for anyone to expect Samir to continue to beat up on Simon.
IFC might be liable to the injured fans for having a defective stadium design. IFC might argue that it was certainly foreseeable to them that a riot might break out since that's why they built the design in the first place, but is it fair to hold them to a standard beyond that of what a reasonable other stadium would have? Although the design was customary for stadiums, that is considered just a baseline level of safety and not a defense if there was a small thing that the IFC could have done to prevent the amount of harm, per Learned Hand. For a new stadium, it may not have been negligent overall but, yes, negligent at the margins for them not to research a better design for the stadium--we don't know, and that's why we might want to hold them liable under strict liability to make them find out. IFC might argue that we shouldn't make them raise prices for what is essentially insurance, but we want to force them to properly weigh the costs and benefits.
Some thoughts:
Were Samir to sue the team, the latter might have an argument that it did everything in its power to prevent this kind of harm - note that the referee’s (hired by the team) called the game very closely. This line of reasoning supports Simon's claim against Samir: it a "friendly" match, and the referees - the ones who designate the conduct of a given game - made this clear from the beginning.
What happened to Jennifer's claim of private nuisance? I don't think it is necessary for her to find the pisser. After the games people make lots of noise and are rowdy. I don't think we equate her with the egg shell plaintiff and I think she has a claim regardless of her neighbor’s indifference to the stench of urine and loud noise.
As per the stadium, one might want to throw in a sentence about the contractual agreement created each time a fan buys a ticket. Usually, on the back there is a waiver of sorts, something along the lines of "IFC shall not be responsible for any damage to person or property", etc.
While I don't think you can equate a stadium to a vaccine, we generally don't employ strict liability for instruments of social benefit (there was a day in class in which Clark specifically said a baseball stadium shouldn't have to build a big net around it to stop the rare ball from bashing a window or someone on the head. Clark was clear that he thought the negligence standard should apply. This being said, negligence claims abound – lack of security, the presence of bottles, etc).
Samir and Simon analyzed through negligence:
Say you looked at Simon's breaking of Samir's ankle not through the lens of intentional torts but through negligence. Simon could argue Samir's primary assumption of risk as a defense. Neither player had a duty of care to the other except the duty to not recklessly or intentionally injure. (No duty --> primary assumption of risk) See Knight v. Jewett, which argues that imposing a duty of care on sports players would "chill the fervor." If Samir's injury was caused recklessly, that defeats Simon's primary assumption of risk defense and would not bar Samir's recovery.
Would it make a difference if Samir brought an action in battery (Simon's defense = consent) or negligence (Simon's defense = primary assumption of risk)?
I think he would win either way. I don't think ankle-breaking is either something soccer players consent to nor a risk they assume.
Couldn't Simon also sue the stadium owners for the fans throwing the bottles, expecially if the bought the beer from in side the stadium? Fans are act dumb expecially when drinking, seems negligent to give them projectiles which can be thrown from the stands and hit players. Plastic cups would be much safer. Even if it was brought from outside, shouldnt they be checking people and stoping them from bringing outside goods in?
Post a Comment