2.5 seconds left, the score is 68 all Isaiah - player of Team Blue Gonzalo - player of Team Green Gonzalo was taking a shot, ran into Isaiah, bumped his head, tripped, no foul was called by the referees A teammate of Isaiah picked up the loose ball and on the center of the court put in the final shot Fist fights occurred Police were called in Finally the place were cleared And there was a young man found dead with stab wounds
Team Green - What cases will you file against whom? Team Blue - Think about what cases may be filed against which clients and what defenses
CLIENT DEFENDANT CASES THAT MAY BE FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANT BOTH TEAMS team green team blue OWNER OF THE STADIUM Action for damages failure of the owner of the stadium to ensure the safety of the players and spectators (i.e. Gonzalos head injury and the death of a young man after the fist fights) An owner may contend that there was an assumption of risk involved. A basketball player assumes the ordinary risks inherent in playing the game. The owner does not guarantee against the fist fights that occured which was due to the undesired result of the game. SPORTS OFFICIALS Action for damages negligence of the referee in not calling a foul after Gonzalo slipped and bumped his head If the action for damages is based on quasi-delict, then, there is the presumption of negligence on the part of the Sports Officials. Proof that they exercised due diligence in trying to prevent the mishap that happened would rebut the presumption of negligence. If the action for damages is based on a breach of contract then, proof that there is this contract and the consequent mishap would suffice to entitle the teams to recover damages. In the latter case, the owner should prove that the mishap was beyond its control and thus, it cannot be said it breached the contract because of its negligence.
SPECTATORS OWNER OF THE STADIUM Action for damages failure of the owner of the stadium to ensure the safety of the players and spectators (i.e. Gonzalos head injury and the death of a young man after the fist fights) An owner may contend that there was an assumption of risk involved. A basketball player assumes the ordinary risks inherent in playing the game. The owner does not guarantee against the fist fights that occured which was due to the undesired result of the game. SPORTS OFFICIALS Action for damages negligence of the referee in not calling a foul after Gonzalo slipped and bumped his head If the action for damages is based on quasi-delict, then, there is the presumption of negligence on the part of the Sports Officials. Proof that they exercised due diligence in trying to prevent the mishap that happened would rebut the presumption of negligence. If the action for damages is based on a breach of contract then, proof that there is this contract and the consequent mishap would suffice to entitle the teams to recover damages. In the latter case, the owner should prove that the mishap was beyond its control and thus, it cannot be said it breached the contract because of its negligence.
SPORTS OFFICIALS INSURANCE For example, some officials suffered injuries during the fist fights. They can ask for their insurance to pay them. The Insurance company may contend that fist fights are not included for injury claims. OWNER OF THE STADIUM For example, some officials suffered injuries during the fist fights. They can institue an action for damages. An owner may contend that there was an assumption of risk involved. The owner may argue that the fist fight that occurred in beyond the realm of its duty to ensure safety. They are only accountable to the safety of venue and their facilties and not with the casualties that may ensue out of the game. OWNER OF THE STADIUM INSURANCE Because of the fist fight that occurred, there was damage done to the stadium. They can ask for their insurance to pay this damage. The Insurance company may contend that fist fights are not included for injury claims INSURANCE OF THE OWNER OF THE STADIUM SPORTS OFFICIALS If in the event that the insurance company pays the owner of the stadium then, the insurance, subrogated into the rights of the owner, may instutite an action for reimbursement against the sport officials. Sports Officials may contend that the fist fights that occured was force majeure.
Sports Officials may contend that they exercised due diligence in trying to resolve/ prevent the fist fight that ensued. TEAM GREEN INSURANCE Because of Gonzalos head injury, they can ask for their insurance to pay the said inury. The Insurance company may argue that cases where there is assumption of risk (such as this case since Gonzalo couldve have foreseen that he may be injured). OWNER OF THE STADIUM Action for damages for Gonzalos head injury and other injuries sustained by other players and its members.
An owner may contend that there was an assumption of risk involved. A basketball player assumes the ordinary risks inherent in playing the game. The owner does not guarantee against the fist fights that occured which was due to the undesired result of the game.
SPORTS OFFICIALS Action for damages for Gonzalos head injury and other injuries sustained by other players and its members. If the action for damages is based on quasi-delict, then, there is the presumption of negligence on the part of the Sports Officials. Proof that they exercised due diligence in trying to prevent the mishap that happened would rebut the presumption of negligence. If the action for damages is based on a breach of contract then, proof that there is this contract and the consequent mishap would suffice to entitle the teams to recover damages. In the latter case, the owner should prove that the mishap was beyond its control and thus, it cannot be said it breached the contract because of its negligence. TEAM BLUE INSURANCE Because of the fist fight, there were players that were injured, the team may ask the insurance company to pay these injuries. The Insurance company may argue that cases where there is assumption of risk (such as this case since Gonzalo couldve have foreseen that he may be injured). OWNER OF THE STADIUM Action for damages for the injuries sustained by the players in the fist fight.
An owner may contend that there was an assumption of risk involved. A basketball player assumes the ordinary risks inherent in playing the game. The owner does not guarantee against the fist fights that occured which was due to the undesired result of the game.
SPORTS OFFICIALS Action for damages for injuries sustained by the players in the fist fight. If the action for damages is based on quasi-delict, then, there is the presumption of negligence on the part of the Sports Officials. Proof that they exercised due diligence in trying to prevent the mishap that happened would rebut the presumption of negligence. If the action for damages is based on a breach of contract then, proof that there is this contract and the consequent mishap would suffice to entitle the teams to recover damages. In the latter case, the owner should prove that the mishap was beyond its control and thus, it cannot be said it breached the contract because of its negligence.