Discuss the evolution of sport law.

SPT 610: Midterm Exam

Answer all of the questions listed.

1. Discuss the evolution of sport law. Provide at least one example as part of your analysis.

Sports Law is like any other form of law in that it evolves with time, changes in technology, and the environment as new rules and court decisions are made. There is some debate about whether sports law is its own category or if it is just the application of the law regarding sports disputes. Sports law touches on a variety of legal doctrines including contract, tort, agency, antitrust, constitutional, labor, trademark, sex discrimination, criminal, negligence, and tax issues. The sports industry is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise in the United States and as it continues to grow sports law will become a recognized subset of law. According to Boyes (2013), Edward Grayson is widely regarded as the father of sports law as his published works provide a historical narrative of the development of the discipline up until its emergence in the mainstream in the 1990s.

One of the most significant cases involving college sports, which was ultimately decided by the United States Supreme Court, was the case National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. In the early 1980s, the NCAA controlled the number of times a school's football games could be televised both nationally and regionally, and the revenue the school received for each broadcast. The NCAA claimed that limiting the number of television appearances (no more than six times over a two-year period) reduces the adverse effects of live television upon football game attendance. Universities belonging to the College Football Association (CFA) were unhappy with the agreement and negotiated a separate television contract with NBC. This agreement allowed for increased television appearances and ultimately increased the revenues of CFA members. The NCAA attempted to take disciplinary action against any CFA member that complied with the CFA-NBC contract by banning them from all NCAA competitions. The CFA schools then sued the NCAA in federal court for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act claiming the NCAA was constraining the market. The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to oppose the use of combinations, monopolies, or cartels that harmed free and open trade and prohibited the restraint of trade. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA’s television plan was a violation of the free market of the Sherman Act and was a form of price-fixing. The ruling stripped the NCAA of a large source of revenue. As a result of the ruling, the free market took hold in college football, and schools such as Notre Dame and Texas were able to enter their own television contracts, while conferences such as the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 were able to create their own networks to increase revenue for the schools directly.

References: Boyes, Simon (2013), Sport & Law Journal 2013, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p9 https://eds-b-ebscohost- com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1b2c56a4-53c4-40a7-a813- 03514920d374%40pdc-v-sessmgr02

Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (2017). Law for Recreation & Sport Managers (8th ed). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984)

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7 (1978).

2. Review the following information:

FACTS: Mariana Shaw was a sophomore at Stanford University. She was a talented tennis player who had earned a full four-year athletic scholarship. Last year, she attended a Stanford- USC football game with two friends. She left the game early to go to the library to study for her Sport Law midterm. She walked through a Stanford University parking lot on her way to the library and noticed two men who appeared to be drunk and fighting. The two men were walking away from each other when one of them staggered and fell into Mariana from behind, tearing the ACL in her left knee. There were no security personnel from Stanford in the area when the injury occurred.

Shaw sued Stanford alleging that she, as a business invitee, should have been protected by Stanford from the act of this third party. Stanford argued that it had no liability absent any actual notice of a particular danger to a patron.

The trial court granted Stanford’s motion for summary judgment.

HOLDING: The California Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

a. Justify the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment.

According to the free dictionary (n.d) a summary judgment is “a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.” The decision to grant summary judgement is justified because there were no disputes of the facts of the case. According to the textbook Cotton (2017), this case would fall under Premises Liability. The trial court likely viewed Ms. Shaw as a licensee, thus Stanford only has the duty to be warned and protected from harms that they are aware of, and in this case Stanford was not liable because this was a danger the were not aware of.

b. Why do you think the Appellate Court did not agree with the trial court’s decision?

The appellate court likely did not agree with the trial court's decision because they may have recognized

that Ms. Shaw was in fact a business invitee vice a licensee. As a business invitee, Ms. Shaw is owed the

highest level of protection by Stanford University to include warnings about known dangers, hidden

dangers and not exposing her to an unreasonable risk.

References: Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (2017). Law for Recreation & Sport Managers (8th ed). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/

TheFreeDictionary.com. (n.d.). Summary judgment. https://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/summary+judgment

3. Review the following information:

Homer Foster took his family (7-year-old son Bart, 9-year-old daughter Lisa, and wife Marge) to see the New Hampshire Fisher Cats baseball team. A colleague from the Southern New Hampshire University Sport Management department gave him four tickets to the game and told him to bring baseball gloves because the seats were in the first row behind the first base dugout. It was a rainy day but the umpires decided to let the game be played. Only Homer and Marge had been to a baseball game before. Between the third and fourth innings, Bart volunteered to participate in a promotional event to run around the bases against the team mascot. Bart, in a state of confusion, turned around and ran into the mascot upon reaching second base, sustaining a concussion and a broken arm. Bart, being a tough kid, returned to his seat, put on his iPod, and watched the rest of the game. In the sixth inning, the mascot came over to see how Bart was doing, and then Bart and Lisa played with the mascot. While the visiting team was throwing the ball around between plays, and while Lisa and Bart were being distracted by the mascot, the shortstop accidentally threw the wet, slippery ball over the first baseman and into the stands, hitting Lisa in the face and breaking her nose. Homer finished his fifth beer, which he had just purchased from the same beer vendor, and immediately left with Bart, Lisa, and Marge to go to the hospital. In his rush to get to the hospital, he hit a school bus carrying Girl Scouts, seriously injuring the bus driver and two of the scouts. The bus driver was driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit and his driver’s license was under suspension due to his recent conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence (alcohol-related).

Discuss the potential plaintiffs, defendants, and theories of liability and likely defenses as a result of these facts. Brief one of the possible lawsuits.

There are a multitude of lawsuits that could occur based on this situation. Below are some of the scenarios:

Plaintiff: Bart and his parents Homer and Marge Defendants: New Hampshire Fisher Cats Theory of Liability: Were the New Hampshire Fisher Cats liable for the injury that occurred to Bart during the promotional event? Tort is additionally a theory of liability that can be used in this case. Defense: Bart was a voluntary participant in the promotional event

Plaintiff: Lisa and her parents Homer and Marge Defendants: New Hampshire Fisher Cats, umpires, opposing shortstop Theory of Liability: Were the umpires negligent for allowing the game to occur in inclement weather? Were the New Hampshire Fisher Cats liable for the injury that occurred to Lisa while she was distracted by the mascot? Was the shortstop negligent in his errant throw that hit Lisa in the face? Defense: Lisa and her family knew the inherent risks of injury that occur while attending a baseball game as there is typically a liability release on all tickets sold. Typically, in baseball stadiums there are also signs posting that there is a risk to object leaving the field and that fans should stay alert. While the shortstop is a professional athlete, the weather likely was the reason behind his errant throw.

Plaintiff: Homer

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/

Defendants: Bus Driver, School Theory of Liability: Was the school negligent for allowing the bus driver to continue to work while having a suspended license? Was the bus driver negligent for continuing to drive with a suspended license? Was the bus driver negligent for driving over the posted speed limit? Defense: Homer was intoxicated which was the actual cause of the accident. Homer was the one who hit the bus not vice versa.

Plaintiff: Bus Driver, School, Girl Scouts Defendants: Homer, Beer vendor, Ballpark Theory of Liability: Was Homer liable for the accident he caused on the way to the hospital because he was intoxicated? Was the beer vendor negligent in continuing to serve Homer? Defense: School and Bus driver are negligent for driving on a suspended license and speeding.

The case brief I will cover is Bart, Homer and Marge (plaintiffs) v. New Hampshire Fisher Cats (defendant). The facts of the case are that Bart sustained a concussion and broken arm on the field during the New Hampshire Fisher Cats game resulting in the filing of a lawsuit claiming negligent tort against the team. The plaintiffs would claim that the mascot did not give Bart proper direction prior to his participation in the promotional event. The defense would argue this was an accident that occurred because Bart became confused during the event. The court would likely rule in the favor of the defendant as the New Hampshire Fisher Cats did not have a legal duty to protect Bart since he voluntarily participated in the promotional event, nor did they have the knowledge that his participation would harm the plaintiff.

References: Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (2017). Law for Recreation & Sport Managers (8th ed). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/

4. Review the following information:

The plaintiff, Michael Wildman, sued the defendant, Mount Manchester, LLC for injuries he suffered while skiing at the defendant’s ski area. The plaintiff alleged that he “went off the trail and descended into the woods.” The plaintiff’s expert witness testified that he struck “…either a rock, stumps, cut log or tree.” The expert also cited several “failures” of the defendant including inadequate construction and maintenance of the ski trails; inadequate warnings, markings and directions; inadequate channeling of skiers; inadequate safety measures and risk reduction policies; inadequate inspection; and inadequate training, supervision, and management of personnel.

Use New Hampshire law (RSA 225-A:23 and 225-A:24) to assist in your analysis.

a. What does the plaintiff have to prove?

The plaintiff would need to prove that the defendant was negligent in maintaining and marking its ski trails, and that it did not have adequate safety measures in place which resulted in his injury. He would also need to prove he had the skill level to ski the trail he was on that resulted in his injury. This is all highlighted by the expert who testified there were inadequate skier channeling, poor safety measures, and risk reduction by the ski resort.

b. What defenses does the ski area have?

The defense could argue the plaintiff, by participating in the sport of skiing, knew the inherent risks associated with his participation. Additionally, the defense could argue the plaintiff had the responsibility of knowing whether or not he was of the skill and ability level for that specific ski slope. Lastly, the defense could argue the injury occurred when the plaintiff went outside the ski area boundaries as marked. This is highlighted in the plaintiff’s testimony where he indicated he went off the trail.

c. Discuss whether you think the ski area has any liability.

RSA Section 225-A:23 is the New Hampshire code pertaining to the Responsibilities of the Ski Area Operator, and RSA 225-A:24 is the New Hampshire code pertaining to the Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers. Based upon the scenario there is not enough information in the case to determine liability. To determine liability, the court would need to determine whether was adequate signage on the trail. Secondly, the court would need to determine if the trails were properly maintained. Thirdly, the court would need to determine if the plaintiff left the trail due to attempting to ski a trail outside of his skill level. If the trails were improperly marked and ill maintained the defendant would be found liable in this instance. However, if the plaintiff was attempting to ski a trail that was outside his skill level the defendant would not be found liable.

References: Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (2017). Law for Recreation & Sport Managers (8th ed). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Responsibilities of the Ski Area Operator, NH Rev Stat § 225-A:23 (2016) https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2016/title-xix/chapter-225-a/section-225-a-23/

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/

Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers, NH Rev Stat § 225-A:24 (2015) https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2015/title-xix/chapter-225-a/section-225-a-24/

This study source was downloaded by 100000780153789 from CourseHero.com on 03-11-2023 08:53:26 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/125160146/SPT-610-Midterm-Examdocx/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)