Sports Law Case Briefs-IRAC #1
Tyler Womer
Sports Law
IRAC #1
9/9/14
Case 1: Moose v. MIT
Issues: (1) Whether or not the defendants (MIT, Coach Taylor, & Coach Slovenski) were negligent with respect to their coaching techniques and the equipment they furnished to Garret Moose at the time he was injured. (2) Whether or not the harm was foreseeable. (3) Whether or not MIT was liable for the injured athlete.
Rule: The jury found that each defendant, as well as the plaintiff, was negligent and that the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Analysis: Both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent in this case, but the defendant’s negligence lead to the injuries. With the defendant knowing the length of the landing pit and its location very close to a hard surface provided an unsafe environment for pole vaulters. It was foreseeable that an injury like this could occur due to improper equipment and facilities.
Conclusion: Both the plaintiff and the defendants had negligence in the case. The plaintiff was 15% negligent, MIT was 45% negligent, Coach Taylor was 25% negligent, & Coach Slovenski was 15% negligent. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for $615,000 which came to a sum of $522,750 after deducting 15% for the plaintiff’s negligence.
Case 2: Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College
Issue: Whether or not Gettysburg College had a duty to anticipate a young and healthy athlete having a heart attack with no prior history of heart problems. Whether or not the harm was foreseeable.
Rule: Gettysburg College did not breach their duty of care because cardiac arrest suffered with no prior history of any heart problems was not reasonably foreseeable.
Analysis: Gettysburg College did not breach their duty of care because of the unreasonable foreseeability, but they should have had steps in place to act in a more timely fashion, whether that responsibility lies on the coaches or the trainers, quicker actions must take place.
Sports Law
IRAC #1
9/9/14
Case 1: Moose v. MIT
Issues: (1) Whether or not the defendants (MIT, Coach Taylor, & Coach Slovenski) were negligent with respect to their coaching techniques and the equipment they furnished to Garret Moose at the time he was injured. (2) Whether or not the harm was foreseeable. (3) Whether or not MIT was liable for the injured athlete.
Rule: The jury found that each defendant, as well as the plaintiff, was negligent and that the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Analysis: Both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent in this case, but the defendant’s negligence lead to the injuries. With the defendant knowing the length of the landing pit and its location very close to a hard surface provided an unsafe environment for pole vaulters. It was foreseeable that an injury like this could occur due to improper equipment and facilities.
Conclusion: Both the plaintiff and the defendants had negligence in the case. The plaintiff was 15% negligent, MIT was 45% negligent, Coach Taylor was 25% negligent, & Coach Slovenski was 15% negligent. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for $615,000 which came to a sum of $522,750 after deducting 15% for the plaintiff’s negligence.
Case 2: Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College
Issue: Whether or not Gettysburg College had a duty to anticipate a young and healthy athlete having a heart attack with no prior history of heart problems. Whether or not the harm was foreseeable.
Rule: Gettysburg College did not breach their duty of care because cardiac arrest suffered with no prior history of any heart problems was not reasonably foreseeable.
Analysis: Gettysburg College did not breach their duty of care because of the unreasonable foreseeability, but they should have had steps in place to act in a more timely fashion, whether that responsibility lies on the coaches or the trainers, quicker actions must take place.