"The Paralegal Chronicles" G.R. Hoyte

? Available Jan 15 at 12am - Jan 23 at 11:59pm 9 days

This assignment was locked Jan 23 at 11:59pm.

To: Paralegal staff

From: Supervising Attorney

Re: Our client – Puyallup Baseball League (PBL)

Our firm has been hired by the Puyallup Baseball League (PBL). The PBL operates a league of eight baseball teams where people over the age of 18 can play. They use real wooden bats and real baseballs and play every weekend during the regular baseball season, which begins in early April and ends on September 1. PBL prides itself on playing “real baseball” instead of softball. Many of the players in the league are former baseball players at the college or semiprofessional level and are very skilled.

PBL owns and operates four baseball fields at their complex. They charge a small admission fee for tickets to the games. Each of the baseball fields has a standard sized field, concession stands, and seating for up to 1500 spectators. All of the baseball fields have protective screening nets which protect spectators from being struck by balls or bats that leave the field. These screens extend from first base all the way around the back perimeter of the field, behind home plate, to third base. The screens were installed in 2016 after several incidents in which spectators were injured when they were struck by baseballs or bats that flew into the seating area. These incidents occurred several times each season prior to 2016. No such injuries are known to have occurred after the protective screening was installed.

In August of last year a severe windstorm blew down the protective screen around one of the PBL fields. Because PBL was unable to find a replacement screen on short notice, they decided to proceed with their games as scheduled without the protective screen. Two days after the netting was destroyed, PBL held a game at the field without the protective nets. During the game, a player hit a baseball into the stands behind home plate. The ball struck a spectator in the eye, causing him severe injuries and the loss of his vision in one eye.

PBL believes that they should not have to pay for the injured spectator’s damages. Our office has been hired to advise them on whether to attempt a negotiated settlement or to deny the injured spectator’s demand for damages. I am in trial this week on another case, and PBL needs a response from me by next week. Because I am unable to research this, I am requesting a memo from you on this issue. Specifically, I need to know if the injured spectator could prove a negligence claim against PBL, and if PBL has any good defenses to the claim. If it looks like plaintiff can prevail, we’ll enter into negotiations. If they can’t, we’ll deny any claims. Please prepare a memo for me in the IRAC format that I can share with PBL when I meet with them next week to advise them on this matter.

George Hoyte

Civil Law

1/23/22

Concerning the defense of the Puyallup Baseball League (PBL), against the injured party (plaintiff), in the matter of negligence causing injury. Although there is always an assumption of risk in such a matter as a public event such as a Baseball game, where a stray ball or bat has the chance to accidentally strike and injure a spectator, It is this paralegals understanding through research of this issue, that the injured party (plaintiff) has the ability to prove a case of negligence on the part of the defendant (PBL), and that being the case, the defendant should consider entering into negotiations with the injured party (plaintiff) to rectify this matter justly and swiftly.

According to RCW 79A.40.010 (Safe and Adequate facilities and equipment is required for owner and operator.)

The fact that the PBL prides itself on using real bats and baseballs over softballs, in and of itself is not negligence in its own right. However, the PBL has had prior history of injuring spectators with this “hard” equipment that they pride themselves in using, in the past.

Knowing this, PBL successfully rectified this unfortunate situation with the instillation of safety nets, which after its instillation, reduced spectator injury rate to 0%.

The fact that PBL chose to continue to play their event without safety nets, after the knowledge of their past record of injuring spectators demonstrates poor lack of judgment at least , and a gross act of negligence at most.

However the case, lack of judgment, or gross negligence, PBL is responsible for, yet again, the injury of another spectator. PBL cannot simply now fall back on the “Assumption of Risk” defense and hope to prevail in court.

In a similar case of “Robin Auks, Respondent v. Glens Falls City School District Appellant “on appeal, the plaintiff lost the case due to the fact that the plaintiff “chose” to stand in a place that was unprotected when she was struck by a ball and injured. The key word is ‘chose.”

In the case of PBL, the injured party (Plaintiff) did not choose to stand outside the safety net when she was injured. PBL chose to play without the safety net, thus turning an “assumption of risk” to an “expectation of injury<” of which they had a prior history of doing. Poor judgment or gross negligence.

In Conclusion, PBL will most likely lose this case if it goes to trial. The defense should seek to enter negotiations to settle and remedy the injured party (plaintiff). The argument of ‘assumption of risk’ is only valid when the spectator understands the risks involved and knows what they are getting into before they get into it. The prior history and foreknowledge of events on the part of PBL has injured yet another spectator due to, again, poor judgment or gross negligence.

It is in my opinion in the best interest of the defense to settle this matter and avoid trial, where the judgment will most likely favor the plaintiff.