Fight Night with the. . .NBA? Torts 101

Law professors all over the U.S. have new fodder for a cool new law exam question.

So get the facts, and allow me to do something I've always wanted to do: "Evaluate plausible liabilities;" or, "Discuss all plausible tort claims."

I know I'm opening the proverbial can of worms here, and I welcome all comments (don't get into who owns United Center, etc.), but after a quick perusal of the facts, here are some cursory thoughts:

Mrs. Davis vs. Fan
Assault: Mrs. Davis must prove (1) apprehension of (2) immediate battery. She would argue that she was facing Fan and felt reasonably threatened, and that Fan knew with substantial certainty that his acts would cause such apprehension.
Fan uses affirmative defense, saying that by attending the game, Mrs. Davis impliedly consents to being the subject of a reasonable amount of taunting; after all, professional sports venues are customarily confrontational. Thus, he'll argue, Mrs. Davis' apprehension was unreasonable.
Fan may argue self defense, if she indeed was yelling at him.
Battery: The facts speak to Fan touching Mrs. Davis' arm. Mrs. Davis must prove (1) harmful or offensive contact (2) with her person.
Fan could defend himself by saying Mrs. Davis is being "super-sensitive," and he had no reason to know of her sensitivity to a simple touch. He could also assert the same defenses as he did for assault.

Mrs. (and Mr.) Davis vs. United Center
Negligence: Davises argue that Owners owe a duty to relatives of visiting players, that the duty was breached by lack of security or bad seating arrangements. But for bad security, Mrs. Davis would not have been subjected to the ensuing harrassment, assault, battery.
Davises could argue negligence in unreasonably selling beer.

Fan vs. United Center
Negligence: Citing recent developments
, Fan would argue that United Center security breached their duty to the fans by not providing enough security to keep players out of the stands.
Memo to NBA players: DON'T GO INTO THE STANDS. EVER.

Fan v. Mr. Davis
Assault: Fan argues that once Mr. Davis (6'9'' 265) walked toward him, Fan was reasonable in feeling apprehension of immediate battery. Mr. Davis could assert the affirmative defense of defense of others, arguing that even if he was mistaken as to Mrs. Davis' endangerment, he reasonably believed she was in danger.
False imprisonment: Fan argues that Mr. Davis' threatening present was a sufficient enough act of restraint to keep Fan in a bounded area.

Fan vs. Knicks: Theory of respondeat superior.

There are a myriad other liabilities, issues, defenses and theories, including Me vs. NBA for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But, have at it, have fun at it.

Posted in: