You are on page 1of 5

TORTS assignment:

Team Blue vs. Team Green


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.

You might also like