In the case of Manning v. Grimsley, David Manning JR. was a spectator at a baseball game. Manning sued the Baltimore Orioles and Ross Grimsley for battery under tort law after injuries suffered from a thrown ball. In my opinion, the defendant did not intend harm. However, the defendant unintentionally caused injury to the plaintiff and is liable under the elements of negligence. Second, the Baltimore Orioles are liable because Grimsley was acting in the capacity of an employee at the time of the incident. Factual Summary
On the day of the incident, several baseball fans were heckling Ross Grimsley when he was in the bullpen warming up. According to witnesses, the hecklers visibly annoyed him. After warming up, he proceeded to pitch the ball to home plate. However, he turned and directed the ball at 80 miles per hour toward the stands in which he earlier had a confrontation. The ball passed through the wire fence and struck the plaintiff. Legal Questions Presented
The legal questions to address are whether Grimsley intentionally caused injury to Manning. If not intentional, the elements of negligence should receive consideration. In addition, an element to consider is whether Grimsley was acting in a personal capacity or in an official capacity of the Baltimore Orioles. The assumption is that the injured party has proof of the extent of his injuries. Predicted Outcome
The court should rule in favor of the plaintiff in regard to negligence of the injuries cause by the defendant. The defendant did expect the ball to penetrate the fence. The defendant did not specifically seek to harm the defendant. The court should rule in favor of the defendant on the charges of battery. The court should rule in favor of the plaintiff over the Baltimore Orioles. One assumption is that the injured party has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document