Sports Law (A+ work. No plagarism)

1. Please read the following scenario and then answer the below questions:

Tom purchased a ticket from a scalper on a street corner to watch his favorite baseball team the Yankees.  He walked into the stadium and purchased a beer and a hotdog and took his seat in the stands.  During the fifth inning a ball was hit into the stands by one of the players on the opposing team.  Tom was too busy checking his cell phone to realize that the ball was coming right at him.  The ball hit him on the head and knocked him out.  While Tom was unconscious on the cement, another fan stole his cell phone and wallet.  The ushers then rushed Tom, still unconscious to the local hospital.  Tom was diagnosed with a concussion.  Once he awoke, he also became extremely sick.  The doctors diagnosed Tom with food poisoning from his hot dog.  Tom was required to take the next two weeks off from work, as a result of both issues.  

1.  What torts, if any, did Tom incur?

2.  Who is liable for each of Tom's injuries?

3.  Did the manner in which Tom purchased his ticket matter in regards to legal liability?

2. Reply to discussion

In this week’s forum I will identify the potential torts against Tom, distinguish who is liable for injuries incurred, and finally address the issue in which Tom’s ticket was initially purchased. A tort is “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability” ("Tort", 2019). This particular term can be used in any instance where there is an encroachment on legal rights. Tort law has two primary purposes; to compensate the plaintiff for losses or damage and to deter the defendant form repeating the same offense (LaMance, 2019). It is important to understand that tort law varies from state to state which makes it even more important to consult a professional in that particular state.

In the case of Tom, we have three separate issues; Tom was hit by a foul ball, Tom had his phone and wallet stolen, and finally, Tom got food poising from the stadium food and missed two weeks of work as a result. First, being hit by the foul ball is not a tort. Stadiums and sport organizations have to take “reasonable care” against potentially injuries and in the case of baseball the netting around home plate and immediately down the first and third base lines accomplishes this. Getting hit by a foul ball in the outfield is not negligence on the part of the stadium or organization. In the instance of Tom having his phone and wallet stolen this is a tort in addition to being considered a criminal act. Finally, Toms episode of food poising is blurry. Tom would have to prove that he got food poising from the hotdog and not anything else that he ate. Tom also has to prove that the stadium didn’t take reasonable precautions against food-born illness. Where this gets complicated is in the case of him missing two weeks of work. Did he miss work because of the concussion or the food poising? If its because of the concussion then there is no tort, if he can prove that it was because of food poisoning then he may have a claim for potential damages in the form of lost time at work. No one is ultimately responsible for Tom being hit by the foul ball. The individual who sole his cell phone and wallet is responsible for the theft of property. Finally, if in fact Tom can prove that he got food poising from the hotdog and the stadium didn’t take reasonable precautions against food-born illness, then the stadium is responsible for the food poising incident. Finally, in the case of Tom’s ticket purchase, I believe that it would not change the outcome. The individual who stole his phone is still legally liable for his crime. In addition, if Tom successfully proved his food poising incident, it doesn’t matter how he got into the stadium.

3. Replly to discussions

This week we were given a scenario to discuss regarding a man attending a sporting event. I have left my answers in the order that the questions were given to make it easier for the class to track.

What torts, if any, did Tom incur?

 

According to US Legal Support a tort is a sports setting is “conduct that harms other people or their property” (US Legal Inc, n.d.). To expand on this, it is a wrong done in a private setting where the person who was wronged may recover damages. With this definition there are a few torts that I believe Tom incurred. The first tort that I can determine would be when Tom was knocked out by the baseball. This resulted in him having to be taken to the hospital. The next would be the theft of his personal possessions while he was at the game and received the first injury. The last tort that I can determine was the food poisoning he received from the hot dog that was purchased at the game.

 

Who is liable for each of Tom's injuries?

 

First let’s talk about the hit to the head that first happened to Tom. According to All Law some stadiums and sporting events print a disclaimer on the tickets for such events covering the owners of the stadium in the event of an injury due to a fly ball or foul ball (All Law, 2015). This can usually be found on the back of a ticket in fine print and would cover most occurrences in regards to injuries of this manner. Now according to the scenario it sounded like this was a fly ball situation where if Tom was paying attention he would have had the time to get out of the way of the ball. If the ticket did have a fine print disclaimer, the only injuries that would usually have the stadium held liable would be foul balls that travel at high speeds and leave little to no time to get out of the way of the oncoming ball (All Law, 2015). Let’s assume that Tom’s ticket has the disclaimer and that he was not sitting behind home plate where a foul ball situation would occur. In this scenario I would say Tom is liable for the first injury.

 

The second injury regards the food poisoning case. According to All Law in cases of food poising which are diagnosed as food poising as a result of food ingested at a particular event, the culprit is almost always the vendor selling the food (All Law, 2014). In Tom’s case I would say it is safe to claim that the stadium would be held liable for his case of food poisoning.

 

Did the manner in which Tom purchased his ticket matter in regards to legal liability?

 

In regards to Tom’s case of food poisoning, the way in which he purchased is ticket would not matter. Tom purchased the food from the stadium legally when he purchased the food himself directly from the vendor. This purchase was separate from the ticket purchase. Anything resulting in injury or illness from the separate purchase should be valid and the stadium should still be liable.

 

 

 

References

All Law. (2014, January 22). Types of liability & injury lawsuits for food poisoning. Retrieved from https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/types-liability-lawsuits-food-poisoning.html

All Law. (2015, February 17). Liability for injury at a stadium or sports facility. Retrieved from https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liability-stadium-sports-facility.html

US Legal Inc. (n.d.). Tort law. Retrieved from https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/tort-law/

9