U.S. Sports Law
U.S. Sports Law

U.S. Sports Law

Lead Author(s): PETER OMONDI-OCHIENG

Student Price: $66.00

15 Items - This exciting text makes legal case clear, precise and simple with a focus for sports management practitioners.

Chapter 1: U.S. Case Studies in Intentional Torts For Professional Sports

Case 1a - Vincent Tarantino vs. Queens Ballpark Company (2014) – In a lost negligence case, Vincent was struck by a foul ball that went through an open luxury suite window at a New York Mets baseball game. In settling the case, the court concluded that the management of the facility already exercised reasonable care. It was also mentioned that the facility did not owe him a duty to protection because baseball safety rules only necessitate that baseball ball parks should provide screening behind the home plate, where the danger of being struck is greatest.

Case 1b - Jonathan Nathans vs. Jose Offerman (2013) – In a successful assault and battery case, Jonathan of the Bridgeport Bluefish, was penalized for using his bat in retaliation after sustaining a hit by a pitch from Jose of the Long Island Ducks. The court testimony revealed that it was foreseeable that a professional baseball batter would charge a pitcher after being struck by a pitch and that baseball was not necessarily a contact sport.

Case 1c - Geeslin vs. Kobe Bryant (2011) – In a lost emotional distress case that arose during a Memphis Grizzlies versus Los Angeles Lakers game, Kobe accidentally fell into the stand in an attempt to play and landed on Geeslin, accidentally causing injuries to his chest with an elbow. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the fall during the play was accidental and did not rise to the level necessary to find intentional infliction of emotional distress, nor assault and battery.

Case 1d - Walker vs. Allen Iverson (2011) – In a lost assault case, Walker was allegedly punched by a bodyguard of NBA player Allen Iverson, after he became abusive and forcibly attempted to pictures of Iverson at a night club without his express consent. Walker sought physical and emotional damages, but the court found no evidence that Iverson had directed his bodyguard to commit an assault. It was also revealed that Walker became verbally abusive and refused a request to stop taking the alleged pictures.

Case 1e - Denver Nuggets & New York Knicks vs. NBA (2006) - This was a battery and assault case resulting from an on-court altercation started by two players, New York Knicks’ Mardy Collins and Nugget’s Smith, two minutes before the end of the game. Other players from both teams also joined the altercation. Eventually, 10 players were suspended for a combined total of 47 games, individual players were fined a total of $1,234,540, and each team was fined $500,000.

Case 1f - Wolfe vs. Bison Baseball, Inc. (2010) – An Ohio Court dismissed the case of a TV crew manager who was struck by a baseball during a pre-game interview, on the following grounds: (a) the thrower of the ball was not an occupier of the baseball field for liability purposes, and therefore owed no responsibility to the injured, (b) the possible occurrence of injury was open and obvious, so the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred recovery, and (c) the plaintiff was a professional who was fully aware of the risk of conducting on-field interviews during warm-ups.

Case 1g - Civitella vs. Pop Warner Football Team of Shelton, Inc. (2010) – A coach was sanctioned for slander (using degrading and insulting comments) and the intentional infliction of emotional distress after a young player suffered emotional trauma. On the charge of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it was revealed that the “negatively strong and rebating” language used in front of 12-15 year olds was beyond their maturity as compared to high school or college athletes. The football team and officials were also sanctioned for vicarious liability, because they took no action against the coach.

Maximization Approach for Case 1h:

Question 1

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Win maximization"


Question 2

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Stakeholder maximization"


Question 3

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Revenue maximization"


Maximization Approach for Case 1i:

Question 1

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Win maximization"


Question 2

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Stakeholder maximization"


Question 3

With the help of additional evidence from newspapers, YouTube, direct quotes, and/or further statistical proof, evaluate the effects of the case on "Revenue maximization"