Business Case Memorandum Manning V. Grimsley

In the case of Manning v. Grimsley, David Manning JR. was a spectator at a baseball game. Manning sued the Baltimore Orioles and Ross Grimsley for battery under tort law after injuries suffered from a thrown ball. In my opinion, the defendant did not intend harm. However, the defendant unintentionally caused injury to the plaintiff and is liable under the elements of negligence. Second, the Baltimore Orioles are liable because Grimsley was acting in the capacity of an employee at the time of the incident. Factual Summary

On the day of the incident, several baseball fans were heckling Ross Grimsley when he was in the bullpen warming up. According to witnesses, the hecklers visibly annoyed him. After warming up, he proceeded to pitch the ball to home plate. However, he turned and directed the ball at 80 miles per hour toward the stands in which he earlier had a confrontation. The ball passed through the wire fence and struck the plaintiff. Legal Questions Presented

The legal questions to address are whether Grimsley intentionally caused injury to Manning. If not intentional, the elements of negligence should receive consideration. In addition, an element to consider is whether Grimsley was acting in a personal capacity or in an official capacity of the Baltimore Orioles. The assumption is that the injured party has proof of the extent of his injuries. Predicted Outcome

The court should rule in favor of the plaintiff in regard to negligence of the injuries cause by the defendant. The defendant did expect the ball to penetrate the fence. The defendant did not specifically seek to harm the defendant. The court should rule in favor of the defendant on the charges of battery. The court should rule in favor of the plaintiff over the Baltimore Orioles. One assumption is that the injured party has proof of the extent of his injuries. Rationale Battery is an intentional tort. The defendant did not intend harm to the plaintiff in this case. It could be argued that Grimsley was a deadly accurate pitcher and deliberately caused harm. However, expecting the ball to penetrate the fence with any degree of accuracy is not reasonable.

The court should rule in favor of the plaintiff in the negligent charge. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had an obligation to duty of care, and it is a reasonable expectation that pitchers do not throw balls at fans. Second, Grimsley had a breach of duty of care. He did not act as a reasonable person would act. Third, there must exist proof that an injury occurred. Fourthly, the injury occurred because of the ball thrown by the defendant. Finally, there was not enough data to determine at what point the plaintiff’s injury will cease. There exists an assumption that the injury was only temporary and did not severely interrupt the plaintiff’s life.

In the case against the Baltimore Orioles, the plaintiff must show that the owners where responsible for its players actions. In addition, there does not appear to be enough evidence to attain that the plaintiff interfered with the defendant’s ability to perform in his official capacity as a pitcher.

This case draws the question to bear of the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff. In the author’s opinion, the defendants are responsible for the injuries incurred. The act perpetrated by Grimsley was irresponsible and unnecessary. Players expecting courtesy from fans at an opposing team’s facility is not reasonable. Players should be aware of the possibility of hecklers and management must provide training on how to deal with it emotionally. Wearing a headset to eliminate the sound from fans is an alternate deterrent. The entire incident was avoidable.