Deck 14: Liability Issues and Sports Participants

Question 1

Which of the following statements is true regarding the concept of the reasonably prudent person:

A) It is a common law standard applied to negligence cases
B) They always act correctly under the law
C) It is a basis of comparison to determine how an individual should act in a given situation
D) It is mandated by statute
E) All of the above
F) A, B and C

Answer 1

F

Question 2

A cause of action of negligence has four elements that must coexist for the plaintiff to go forward with the claim. They are:

A) Duty, Negligence per se, Damages, Assumption of risk
B) Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation, Damages
C) Breach of Duty, Negligence per se, Causation, Act of God
D) In loco parentis, Negligence per se, Causation, Damages

Answer 2

B

Question 3

Which of the following state statutes are intended to provide some level of immunity for private landowners who open their property for use by the public with no fees charged?

A) Recreational use statutes
B) Volunteer immunity statutes
C) Charitable immunity statutes
D) Sport safety acts or shared responsibility statutes

Answer 3

A

Question 4

Which of the following are the two elements that must coexist in order for the Act of God defense to be viable?

A) A natural disaster that is foreseeable
B) A natural disaster that is unforeseeable
C) Any type of event that is unforeseeable
D) A natural disaster that is unique

Question 5

Which of the following are defenses to product liability claims?

A) The plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
B) The plaintiff assumed any increased risk created by the defect that was beyond the inherent risk of the activity itself.
C) The danger was hidden and concealed.
D) The product was not in fact defective and an adequate warning was provided.
E) All of the above
F) A, B, and D

Question 6

In a state using a pure comparative negligence rule, which of the following is an accurate statement?

A) Any % of liability attributed to the plaintiff will completely eliminate their recovery of damages
B) Plaintiff can receive damages, but the amount must be reduced by their % of negligence
C) Plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be more than 50% liable
D) The % of negligence attributed to the plaintiff is irrelevant.

Question 7

If a plaintiff successfully proves two of the four elements of negligence, and one of them is causation, the defendant will be held liable for ordinary negligence.

Question 8

If a plaintiff is attributed 60% of liability under modified comparative negligence, they cannot recover damages.

Question 9

A legal duty is the result of a special relationship which can be created voluntarily.

Question 10

The defense of statute of limitations provides that claims must be filed in a timely fashion.

Question 11

Punitive damages are awarded things such as for lost wages and medical expenses.

Question 12

Generally speaking, universities have a special relationship with the student athletes that they recruit and must provide emergency care for catastrophic harms that are generally foreseeable.

Question 13

Supervision includes proper instruction and monitoring of the activity.

Question 14

Manufacturers have the duty to warn the consumer about all dangers resulting from the use of their product.

Question 15

Please explain the foreseeability requirement as it applies to duty and the overall proof requirement of negligence.

Question 16

Please choose 2 of the following defenses and describe them thoroughly, as they would be used by a defendant in a lawsuit:
a. Assumption of Risk
b. Immunity
c. Good Samaritan Statute
d. Act of God
e. Comparative Negligence

Question 17

Under product liability theory, manufacturers and sellers can be negligent under three separate claims. Please list and thoroughly describe these three negligence claims.

Question 18

Daniel was an 18-year-old member of the XYZ High School gymnastics team; he was a senior varsity member, and had many years of gymnastics practice and competition experience. During a regularly scheduled practice in the Athletic Fieldhouse, Daniel suffered a serious wrist injury while working on the high bar. The injury occurred when Daniel's right hand grip failed, causing his wrist to lock in place and be slammed against the bar as his body continued to swing over the bar. Plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of both bones in his right lower arm.
At the time of the accident, Daniel was wearing hand grips that he had just been given by a member of the coaching staff, as he had lost his regular grips at the previous competition. Daniel stated that the new grips were the same size as his old ones, with the only difference being that the new grips were fastened by buckles, while his old grips used Velcro. Daniel had never practiced or competed with buckled grips; however, he assumed they required the same fit as Velcro grips.
Following the accident, Daniel was helped down from the bar by his coaches and teammates, where he had been hanging by his injured wrist. Once down from the bar, Daniel's coaches and teammates began to render emergency first aid. No athletic trainers were present, nor were any in the Fieldhouse at the time of the accident. Given that the injury did not impact Daniel's spinal cord, and he was not bleeding, none of the coaches or teammates called 911; rather, they tended to Daniel themselves. One of the gymnastics coaches present was certified in Red Cross Basic First Aid; that coach gave verbal first aid to Daniel's teammates who were helping him.
The first aid given by the coaches and teammates consisted of removing the hand grip from plaintiff's wrist and immediately placing ice on the injured area; again, there was no trainer present when the hand grip was removed. In order to take the hand grip off, one of plaintiff's teammates was required to tighten the straps so that he could release the buckle. Daniel said the pain from this was excruciating, and thought this action exacerbated his injury.
Within thirty minutes of the injury occurring, Daniel was taken to the emergency room by his coach. Upon arrival at the hospital, Daniel underwent extensive surgery; he required metal pins to stabilize the broken bones.
Please discuss any Risk Management concerns you have regarding these facts. What are the legal issues? You may discuss any material from this course that you think is relevant to the situation

Question 19

Sarah and Michelle were playing a game of pick-up basketball with 4 other women at a city park. The two teams played 3-on-3 regularly and were known for being aggressive. There was always pushing and shoving in the game, and occasionally a few elbows were thrown. No one was ever seriously injured, but players always left the game with some scrapes, bruises, etc. In the game in question, Sarah went up to block a shot that Michelle was attempting under the basket. Sarah intended to swat the ball away from Michelle; however, Sarah used such force hitting the ball that Michelle was knocked to the ground. Michelle fell awkwardly, hitting her mouth on the metal basket post, and knocked out several teeth. While walking away from the court, Michelle smacked Sarah very hard on the back of the head.
Three weeks after the game, Michelle filed a civil lawsuit accusing Sarah of negligence. She was requesting actual damages for medical bills, and compensatory damages for emotional harm and suffering. In response to the civil lawsuit, Sarah contacted the local police department and filed a report accusing Michelle of criminal battery. Due to the circumstances surrounding the case, the Assistant District Attorney decided to press charges.
Let's recap:
Michelle (plaintiff) is suing Sarah (defendant) in civil court for monetary damages. You may assume that the standard of care in the jurisdiction for co-participant civil liability is reckless misconduct. Sarah filed criminal charges against Michelle for criminal battery and the ADA is attempting to prosecute Michelle for the crime.
Please discuss which of these two cases has the best chance of succeeding, and most importantly, WHY. Also, you may certainly compare the two outcomes, but be certain to advocate for the strengths of the case you choose, not the weakness of the one you don't. Do not make your selection by default.