Tort LawTopic 1: LiabilityHypothetical:
Paulette Konerko, a baseball fan seated in a bleacher seat behind the third base line, is hit by a foul ball while attending a baseball game. There was screening put up along other areas of the ball park, but not where Ms. Konerko was sitting. There also were no signs warning of dangers of being hit by a foul ball. Can she recover damages against the owner of the ball park and/or the player who hit the foul ball? Would your answer change if she were seated in an un-screened area behind home plate and hit by wild pitch?You are expected to review and comment on at least two of your classmates responses. Topic 2: Ware v. City of ChicagoRead Ware v. City of Chicago, 873 N.E.2d 944 (1st Dist. 2007). Obtain the case using Westlaw. A balcony collapse resulted in the death persons and numerous injuries. The plaintiffs alleged that the City of Chicago should be liable because it failed to properly perform inspections of the allegedly unsafe balcony? Why w
as the City of Chicago not liable? Would it matter if the City had been negligent or reckless? Do You are expected to review and comment on at least two of your classmates responses. Answer previewTOPIC 1: LIABILITY Miss korneko can recover the damages because, she did sit at the spot intentionally. She sat there knowing that she was safe since there were no signs put at the place indicating that there was any danger if she sat there. The owner of the park should have made an effort of ensuring that the entire park had the necessary protection for all those people who attend to watch the match. However he not do this, therefore becoming liable to pay for the damages that Miss koneko suffered. Under the law, the plaintiff in this case has got a case because had she be forewarned then she would have been the one who exposed herself to danger. The player who hit the ball is not liable for any damages
.WORD COUNT: 311WORDSFORMAT:APA
$4.00 Purchase Checkout