1
Liability of Ollie
To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages. Under the principles of premises liability, a landowner’s duty is determined by the status of the person entering the property. An individual present for a business purpose, such as an athlete playing in a rented venue, is considered a business invitee. To such an invitee, a landowner owes the highest duty of care: the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the obligation to conduct reasonable inspections to discover and either repair or warn of any hidden dangers.
Here, Yvonne was a player on a team that rented the field, clearly establishing her status as a business invitee to whom Ollie owed this high duty of care. Ollie performed an inspection of the field on the afternoon before the game but did not inspect it again prior to the start of play. A jury could determine that this was a breach of his duty. Given that a field accessible to the public could have new hazards appear overnight, a reasonably prudent landowner preparing for a contact sporting event might have conducted a final inspection on the day of the game. Ollie’s failure to do so allowed the broken glass, a hidden danger, to remain on the field.
Therefore, because Ollie owed a duty of care to Yvonne as an invitee and likely breached that duty by failing to reasonably inspect the field, leading directly to her injuries, a court would likely conclude that Ollie is liable for negligence.
Liability of Barry
A coach, by virtue of their position of authority and their role in directing play, owes a duty of care to all participants in a sporting event, including opponents. This duty requires them to refrain from encouraging or directing their players to engage in conduct that is reckless or falls outside the scope of risks ordinarily associated with the sport.
Here, Barry's actions constituted a clear breach of this duty. He specifically instructed Kate to "play more roughly," knowing that she was a "very aggressive player" with a history of starting fights as a result of such instructions. This was not a standard coaching tactic; it was an affirmative act that foreseeably created an unreasonable risk of injury to opposing players.
In conclusion, by intentionally encouraging reckless conduct that exceeded the normal risks of the game, Barry breached his duty of care to Yvonne. As this breach directly and foreseeably caused her injuries, a court would find him liable for negligence.
2
Yvonne's Claim Against Kate
The tort of battery is defined as an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact with another person.
A primary defense to battery is consent. In the context of athletic contests, participants are understood to consent to contacts that are a normal, foreseeable part of the game, even if those contacts might otherwise constitute a battery. However, this consent is not unlimited; it does not extend to acts of violence that are unrelated to the normal play of the game or that occur outside the course of play. While Yvonne did consent to being tackled, bumped, and even knocked down within the course of play, Kate's punch falls far outside the scope of that consent.
Another defense to battery is self-defense. However, it is a well-established rule that mere words or verbal provocation are not legally sufficient to justify a physical attack. Here, Yvonne's question may have provoked Kate, but this verbal taunt provides no legal defense for Kate's physical retaliation.
As all the elements of battery are met and no valid defense exists, Yvonne will be successful in her suit against Kate for battery.
Kate's Claim Against Yvonne
See ruls above.
Yvonne pushed Kate immediately after Kate had punched her. It was objectively reasonable for Yvonne to believe that she might be subject to further attack. Her response—a single push—was a reasonable and proportional use of force intended to create distance and prevent further harm. The action was defensive in nature rather than retaliatory.
Because Yvonne’s push was a justified act of self-defense in response to Kate's initial attack, she is privileged in her action. Accordingly, Kate's claim against Yvonne for battery will fail.
3
The rules for allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors differ by jurisdiction. The majority rule is joint and several liability, under which each defendant may be held responsible for the entire judgment, leaving it to the defendants to seek contribution from one another. To resolve the contribution claim, a jury would be required to allocate the percentage of fault between defendents.
Therefore, Yvonne can collect her entire damages award from either Ollie or Barry. Whichever defendant pays the full amount will then be able to sue the other for contribution to recover the portion of the damages that corresponds to the other’s percentage of fault as determined by the jury.
(848 words)