Robin attended a high school baseball game at the local high school baseball fie

Question

Robin attended a high school baseball game at the local high school baseball field. The field had fencing 24 feet high and 50 feet wide behind home plate. The 24 foot high fencing was located in front of bleachers for spectators. Robin chose not to sit in the bleachers even though there were plenty of available seats there. Instead, she stood along the third base line behind a three foot high fence. While watching the game, Robin was struck in the eye by a sharply hit foul ball. She suffered serious injury as a result and sued the school district. Under these circumstances, which of the following is/are true? Robin's strongest argument is that the school district is liable for her injuries based on a claim of negligence. The school district can make a strong argument that it is not liable under the doctrine of assumption of the risk. The school district can make a strong argument that it is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators and that the fencing it provided was reasonable under the circumstances and satisfied its duty of care. All of the above.

Explanation / Answer

The given statements are:

a. Robin's strongest argument is that the school district is liable for her injuries based on a claim of negligence – This statement is True. Robin can claim that the high school was the host for the baseball match and the school owed all the audiences, a duty of care. The school had not critically examined the risks associated with audiences’ health and safety and hence they can be sued for her damage.

b. The school district can make a strong argument that it is not liable under the doctrine of assumption of the risk – This statement is True. The school can claim that though Robin had the option to sit on the free bleachers, she made the choice to stand along the third base line. The third base line was inside the match area and could have been subjected to hit by the ball. Robin knowingly had sat there and therefore, the school is not liable for Robin’s damages under the doctrine of the assumption of risk.

c. The school district can make a strong argument that it is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators and that the fencing it provided was reasonable under the circumstances and satisfied its duty of care- this statement is again True. The school had taken adequate care for the spectators of the match. They had placed bleachers for the spectators to sit on, as well as they had provided a 24 feet high fencing. These all activities were done keeping the safety and protection of the spectators in mind.

d. All of the above – Since all of the above statements are True, this option gets automatically satisfied.

The answer is Option (d) – All of the above

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.