Negligence in Avila v. Citrus Community College District

-Avila was 19 year old baseball player at Rio Hondo Community College -During game against Citrus College he got his \"deliberately\" with a pitch in the head -cracked his helmet & felt dizzy & in pain -coaching staff didn't check on him/get medical aid & told him to get on base -alleged citrus college was *negligent for not providing medical aid, failing to supervise & control pitcher, failure to provide umpires to prevent reckless pitching, failure to provide proper helmet protection & failing to pro dive reasonable training for coaching staff/trainers* -citrus college argued it was immune under gov code for recreational immunity, so owed no duty to supervise Avila -*Avila won* after an appeal because court ruled that immunity was not appropriate & it was *foreseeable* that a player would get hurt

1-Standard of care/duty *responsibility 2-Breach of the duty *Failure to meet standard of care 3- Causation *proximate, cause in fact 4-Injury *actual harm

-DiNardo was head football coach for Vanderbilt -Vanderbilt wanted to exited contract -LSU wanted DiNardo, so he got permission from Vanderbilt to talk to them -Accepted job at LSU -*Vanderbilt seek liquidated damages under sec 8 of contract* -said he was liable for 3 yr net salary, 1 yr original contract & 1 yr addendum -*Vanderbilt won*- court ruled it was enforceable 7 reasonable

-Former football player -Disabling injury during practice -could not afford to finish school w/out scholarship -considered himself an employee so sued for not being compensated under *workers disability compensation act* -Court used 4 part economic reality test to determine if employee (passed 3/4) -Football was not integral to university, so ruled not employee (4th part) -WESTERN MICHIGAN WON *Showed student athletes aren't employees*

-Washington sport built new stadium & got sued for not complying with ADA -so they sued United Coastal because in insurance contract (item 5) they have duty to defend claim _*contracter was negligent in building- breached duty* -Washington Sport WON *importance of following regulations

-Tarkanian was UNL basketball coach -UNLV was found to have 38 improper recruiting practices -Tarkanian was a part of iy, so his pay was cut & faced demotion -Sued because he wasn't given *due process* (5th amendment right) -*Court found NCAA is not state institution & does not owe due process* *shows how much of a monopoly it is

*Landmark in tort law- established proximate cause as a limitation of negligence* -Palsgraf tried suing for negligence of employees -LIRR WON (1928)

-Class action law suit (numerous plaintiffs) -NCAA was *conspiring* to lower coaches salaries by putting cap for new assistants -*Court ruled that NCAA violated section 1 of Sherman Act* - Law won -got treble damages & used CPI (consumer price Index) to calculate added loses

Consideration Capacity Offer Acceptance Legality

-sue CFL for trademark infringlement -wanted a team called CFL Colts -said people would get confused -Indianapolis colts won -tried arguing they abandoned trademark when they left to go to Indiana

Assumption of risk contributory negligence (1% at fault)

-Hayden went to football game in season ticket seat -field goal was kicked & not blocked -fans dove & her shoulder was injured -*sued for negligence* -*NOTRE DAME WON because 3rd parties act was unforeseeable*

-CBC sued because believed they could use names & stats of players in conduction with their fantasy baseball products -MLB said breached contract -CBC had a contract but it expired and MLB licensed exclusive rights to Advanced Media -CBC won because rights to publicity -information was available to the public *was a major blow to pro sport & what they own*

1992 several female athletes sued using three part test to show Brown was not complying with title XI didn't comply with 2/3 parts -1 substantial proportionality (was off) - History of expansion of women's programs (not adequate growth) -Full & effective women's interest womens coaches lost offices, lost practice time priority

-Male swimming team was cut, along with fencing & women's diving due to budge constraints.. but was mainly because title IX -male swimmers alleged gender discrimination under Title IX & equal protection *this was a collateral attack= argue the same point (got a motion for summary judgement) -Title IX does not protect mens sports -Though sympathetic, the court ruled in favor of defendant= University of Illinois won

-Ivan Rodriguez signed terminable agent contract with Speakers -Proserve said if he came & signed with them they would make him millions in endorsements -Rodruiguez switch to preserve & speakers sued for fraudulent interference with contract *Did Proserve violate Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act?* -Court ruled competition is NOT a tort- no evidence of fraud & the contract was terminable so speakers did not own -Shows how competition is just part of the game for agents -never got endorsement money...

1- employer right to control/dictate activities of proposed employee 2- employer right to discipline/fire 3- payment of wages/benefits for daily expenses 4- task performed in \"an integral part\" of business *Need all 4 to be considered an employee*

-Clarett was a running back for Ohio state -Did first year & was very good -He was suspended his second year & wanted to go to NFL his third year (early) -NFL eligibility rules say you need three full college season or there NFL season past HS -Sued saying rules violated antitrust laws and limited competition -Argued it should be up to the team to decide if player is ready to go pro -Clarett won the case in the lower court (shows how skewed info can be) but ultimately NFL won -He was not protected under CBA yet= NOT A MEMBER -decision was based on non statutory labor exemption- NFL can makes rules like the eligibility for people not part of the association