1. What argument would you make on behalf of Emily that the owner of the baseball park had a legal obligation to protect her from wild baseballs?
The land, for which the baseball park is on, is a public place. A public invitee is one who is invited and enters the land for the purpose for which the land is held open to the public, in this case a baseball field. The owner of this public land has a duty to protect his invitees with reasonable care, because he is the possessor of the land. Using reasonable care requires the defendant to recognize the risks created by his actions and to act reasonably in light of those risks. I would make the argument that the defendant breached his duty with negligence by not having a fence surrounding the baseball field to prevent such injuries from occurring (Edwards & Edwards, 2012).
2. What argument would ...view middle of the document...
3. What are the laws, both statutory and case law, in your state regarding premises liability? In the light of those laws, whom do you think will prevail in this case and why?
Fla. Stat. § 375.251 states “An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area.” This applies to all persons going on the area including invitees, licensees, and trespassers (Fla. Stat. § 375.251, 2014).
In the case of Nielsen v. Sarasota, the court held that no actionable negligence was shown when a boy was injured by falling down the bleachers at a public ballpark. Plaintiffs, the minor and his mother, brought suit against defendants, the city and the organization that sponsored the game, alleging negligence. The complaint set up the claim that the defendants had a duty to safeguard the patrons. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that there was no showing either of negligence or that the injury was the proximate result of the alleged negligence (Nielsen v. Sarasota, 1959).
After reading this statute and case, I think the defendant would win in this case. Fla. Stat. § 375.251 clearly states that a possessor of public land does not owe a duty to its invitees or its trespassers. The case of Nielsen v. Sarasota clearly supports this statute, in where the complaint was set up to claim that the defendants had a duty to protect its invitees or patrons, whereas the court says otherwise (Nielsen v. Sarasota, 1959).
Edwards L. L. & Edwards S. J. (2012). Tort Law for Legal Assistants (The
West Legal Studies Series) fifth ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson-Delmar.
Fla. Stat. Title 28. Chapter 375. § 375.251 (2014). Retrieved from LexisNexis
Nielsen v. Sarasota 110 So. 2d 417; 1959 Fla. App. Lexis 3157. Retrieved from LexisNexis