After researching (task below) I would think that the following would fall under tort law - negligence tort/assumption of risk. However I am somewhat gray in the area of causation. Also another question - in some sports activities (such as church, work, university and other leagues utilize a waiver as an attempt to reduce their exposure to risk. Some feel that these waivers are useless - are they or do they assist in reducing risk exposure - as I am getting conflicting information.
Also I am having difficulty locating cases which pertain to the task. I have found one similar case (it however involves a minor) but am unable to locate other cases. http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/balthazr.htm
I found a similar case but appears to be an intentional tort (intentionally thrown pitch) http://www.dayontorts.com/cat-general-negligence-action.html - thus am wishing for assistance for locating other case(s) which are similar to the task below.
A man playing a recreational game of baseball is injured by a wild pitch and requires medical care. Is the pitcher or the baseball league liable for damages?
Please do not utilize attachment as posted with yahoo email and unable to access some attachment through site
If the individual is injured playing a recreational game of baseball by a wild pitch that requires him to seek medical attention, this injury has been caused by the primary assumption of risk and so neither the pitcher nor the baseball club is responsible for the injuries caused to the individual.
The following has been taken from the website: http://www.vglaw.com
"Primary assumption of risk occurs where the plaintiff either expressly or impliedly has consented to relieve the defendant of an obligation or duty to act in a certain way toward him "http://www.vglaw.com
In this case by joining in the recreational game of baseball, where wild pitches may occur, the player has with implication consented to relieve the pitcher of the obligation or duty to protect him from injuries. So, if the player gets injured then the pitcher cannot be held responsible.
In negligence case the player has to prove the following:
This material has been taken from the website: http://www.vglaw.com
"1) The existence of a duty owed to the plaintiff, 2) a breach of this duty, 3) a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff, and 4) a causal relationship between the breach of duty and the damage sustained by the plaintiff." http://www.vglaw.com
The accidentally careless behavior does not constitute negligence. This is because it is a part of a participant's normal energetic conduct. The primary assumption of risk has removed the existence of the duty owed to the individual who was playing baseball.
Primary assumption of risk completely prevents the individual from recovering anything on negligence claims from the pitcher. So, the pitcher goes free.
On "However I am somewhat gray in the area of causation. Also another question - in some sports activities (such as church, work, university and other leagues utilize a waiver as an attempt to reduce their exposure to risk. "
This falls under the category of express primary assumption of risk. In this primary assumption of risk, the league, university or church mentions that the risks associated with the game or work. If these risks are read and is properly understood by the person who is entering into ...
Tort law is discussed in great detail in this solution.