Allison Long

RSM 337
September 19, 2016

Negligence Essay
Negligence can be interpreted in many different ways. Many different requirements have
to fall into place for negligence to exist. Although these requirements determine on the situation,
the four basic requirements of any situation of negligence is duty, breach, causation, and
damages. All four of these requirements must be met in order for negligence to be present.
Negligence is simply the failure to use reasonable care for a duty being performed, resulting in
damage or injury to another without the intent of doing so.
Adam, the plaintiff in the case, needs to determine the four requirements to make a valid
case for negligence by Brad Jones and the owner of the stadium. Since Adam is the plaintiff, he
must prove there was a duty owed, that duty was breached, the causation of what occurred to
occur, and lastly the damages done in order to have a case for negligence in court.
Adam could argue the duty being owed to him was the right to enjoy the experience of a
baseball game while also being protected from any average baseball game situation where a
spectator may be injured. Since Adam was an invitee to the game because he entered with a
ticket, he must be protected at a greater level. If Adam wanted to sue the owner for negligence,
he would need to argue that the general duty of the owner was that premises would be
maintained in a reasonably safe condition for the circumstance that a helmet would fly in the
stands and hit a spectator. Although this may be hard to argue as it may very rarely or never
occur in the game of baseball, it is still arguable. An easier possibility would be to argue that
where Adam was standing shouldve been protected for if a baseball and or any other object
would injure a spectator. Although Adam wasnt hit by a baseball, if he could be hit by a baseball
he can argue that he shouldve been more protected under the circumstances if he wants to sue
the owner of the stadium. Arguing this aspect of the case is called breaching through an act of
omission.
Adam also has the alternative route of suing Brad Jones, the player responsible for
throwing the helmet that caused Adams injury. Baseball is considered to be a sport with inherent
risks because it is known that the possibility of a baseball flying up and hitting a spectator is
possible. While in this case, it is an un-inherent risk because one would not think about a helmet
flying into the stands and injuring a spectator; it was beyond the natural risks arising from the
baseball game.
To maximize his chances at compensation however, Adam can sue both Brad and the
owner of the stadium. Now that Adam has established that both Brad and the owner had a duty to
serve to an invitee such as Adam, he must next prove that they breached their duties. To do this,
he must establish how one in the defendants position would breach their duty. For Brad, his
duty is to be the reasonable and prudent person in this situation. According to his act of throwing
the helmet, he did was not thinking like a prudent, reasonable person would have at this time. It
was breached because Brad Jones should have not acted out in the way he did.
Adam would then need to argue that the owner also breached his duty by not protecting
him in the stands. To do this, Adam would first need to argue he did not have knowledge of these
potential dangers to him, as he was foreign and did not fully understand baseball. He would need
to argue that because a baseball flying into the stands is a foreseeable risk, a helmet is no
different. Adam would need to document if there were no signs notifying him of these possible
dangers, as this may play a large role in proving that the owners duty was breached. If these
warning signs were in plain sight of Adam however, he would have knowledge because he
should have known to be aware of objects during the game at all times.
After proving both Bryan and the owner breached their duties, the next step is to assess
the causation of Adams injury. Arguing this will be much harder against the owner, as he had
little to no control over the situation. Since the owner did not cause Adams injury directly, Adam
would need to argue that the natural, direct, and uninterrupted consequence of the owner
breaching his duty is Adam did not have knowledge of the potential threat that impacted him.
Brad Jones was the direct cause of Adams injury, so it may be much easier in court to
argue against Brad for negligence. Since, Brad threw his helmet to the ground and it naturally
flew into the stands because of this, the breach of Brads duty caused Adam harm and thus
checks off causation for the four negligence elements.
The final element of the negligence requirements is damages. Since Adam most likely
isnt looking to punish Brad or the owner for their actions, he would be proving the value of his
compensatory damages. To do this, Adam should document doctors visits and costs, how much
work he missed due to his injury and how much money was lost due to this. The more details and
compensatory damages Adam can deliver, it is more likely he will receive more monetary
compensation for his damages. If Adam does document all medical bills and time lost due to
injury, this would lead to money compensation to repay the bills and time.
Now that Adam has established exactly how to sue Brad and the owner of the stadium for
negligence, it is now time to present the defense for both Brad and the owner. This can be done
in a multitude of ways depending on exactly how the defense wants to go about it in court.
The owner of the stadium can argue in defense of himself that Adam knew or should have
known that objects from the game had the potential to go into the stands by him and could risk
injury to him or others around him. The easiest defense for the owner would be to argue the
assumption of risk defense. The owner could argue a helmet as an inherent risk of the game of
baseball, as it is similar to a baseball in the sense it has the potential to reach the spectators and
cause injury or harm. The owner would then need to argue Adam provided voluntary consent to
be exposed to the risk, as he attended the game. Lastly, the toughest part of the owners defense
would be proving Adam knew, understood, and appreciated the inherent risks of the game. Since
Adam was from another country and is new to the game of baseball, the owner needs to provide
examples of signs documenting warnings such as balls flying into stands. The owner would need
to show solid proof of these and prove Adam knew or should have known the risks. If the court
rules one of the requirements for the assumption of risk defense is not met, the owner would
need to figure out a whole new defense to argue against Adam. The owner could also us The
Baseball Rule (limited duty rule) as a partial defense against Adam.
Brad Jones would also make the same argument as the owner of Adams assumption of
risk. However, Brad could also, depending on the state, use comparative negligence in arguing
his case. He could argue players always hit foul balls into the stands and hit spectators and are
never liable for their injuries, and although it wasnt a baseball that he caused go into the stands,
it is still an inherent risk of attending the game. This defense would probably not be as successful
however.
In this case, Adam would win due to the injuries caused by the Brad Joness helmet
hitting the ground, bouncing up, and flying up into the stands. Adam would sue both Brad Jones
and the owner of the stadium for negligence due to very little warnings about flying objects
coming into the stands and creating a risk for spectators.