Tort Cases

Question 1

Kleinknecht v. gettysburg college
Facts
3rd circuit appeal

Answer 1

Facts: lax player had heart attack at practice and died. no plan for emergency. trainers were very far away. took long time to get to player which arguably led to his death

3rd circuit appeal: whether school owed a duty of care to student

• special relationship
• foreseeability

Question 2

kleinknecht v. gettysburg college
special relationship
foreseeability

Answer 2

1. special relationship: college owes duty of care to student bc athlete was recruited, engaged in school-sponsored sport (unlike pick-up game of fb)
   - special relationship with walk-ons bc school-sanctioned event
   - club sports: no answer in this case
2. foreseeability: that a serious injury could occur during lax game/practice
   - courts determined risk was foreseeable

Question 3

no basis on cause of action?

Answer 3

in law, if you have no basis on cause of action, sanctions would be imposed

Question 4

kleinknecht v. gettysburg college

financial burden

Answer 4

• college says they must do it all the time (ambulances, AED)
• college thinks financial obligations outweigh making the changes
• with tort law, if financial burden is too heavy, sometimes court does not force changes

Question 5

tawana hammond v. board of edu of carroll county
facts
issue
reason

Answer 5

facts: 1st girl fb player for school. parents signed permission slips. passed phys. exam. instructed not to tackle/block with neck. attended meeting on head and neck injuries. during 1st scrimmage, while carrying ball, plaintiff was tackled and sustained multiple internal injuries (ruptured spleen, pancreas)
issue: did school board have a duty to warn players and parents of injuries
reason: body contact, bruises, and clashes are inherent. not other way to play. no prospective player need be told that a participant in fb may sustain injury. fact is self-evident

Question 6

tawana hammond v. board of edu of carroll county
holding
public policy statement
gym class vs. football?

Answer 6

holding: schools officials have no duty to warn a student or students parents that serious injury may result from the students’ voluntary participation on a hs varsity tackle fb team

public policy statement: at end, legal holding = no duty to warn, but warning participants is a sound idea
-what’s good for public might not be legal, but public will still benefit

gym class vs. fb? difference b/t getting hurt in gym class bc fb is a voluntary activity whereas gym class is not

Question 7

sovereign immunity

Answer 7

used to not be able to sue public schools for tort, but most states allow tort cases today

Question 8

raymond santopietro, jr v. city of new haven
facts
issue

Answer 8

facts: watching men’s sb game from behind backstop and was hit in head from bat from an angry player. much unruly behavior occurred throughout the game, but umpires did nothing the entire game
issue: whether, in hindsight, umpires erred and whether umpire error constituted an absence of him broad discretion

Question 9

raymond santopietro, jr vs. city of new haven
reason
holding
diff duty of care for refs?

Answer 9

reason: need to prove breach of duty thru expert testimony bc determination of duty of care requires specialized knowledge and calls are made up to umpires’ discretion
- did not have expert testimony
- umpires state they didnt see any misconduct
- if they did, they had discretion, thus, no negligence

holding: court determined any umpire would make the same call; did not breach duty of care owed to plaintiff

diff duty of care for refs? officials have a duty to keep game from getting out of control