Negligence Essay

A newly renovated baseball field was converted into a softball field over the summer at a

high school. During the conversion of the field from a baseball to a softball field there was an

error made by facility staff to properly cover holes. The hole surrounding the fixed anchor at first

base was not filled in by caps or covers resulting in an injury to the first baseman’s (P) ankle.

The athlete as a result suffered from a severely fractured ankle furthering her case to sue the

umpires and school district (D) for negligence. The athlete alleges the condition of the field was

not safe for use or properly assembled. The question at play today is, is the school district and the

umpires liable for the injury sustained by the athlete?

Negligence can be defined as an “unintentional tort (civil wrong) that causes injury to a

person in the form of personal injury, property loss or reputation,” (Siegrist, 2022, slide 2).

Siegrist (2022, slide 2) notes its important when dealing with negligence to know there is no

“intent to cause harm or injury.” Another way to approach the meaning of negligence according

to Siegrist (2022, slide 2), is “Conduct that results in an unreasonable risk of harm to another.”

Now that negligence has been defined, we now need to consider the elements of negligence to

establish if in fact negligence did occur. When piecing together if an incident is negligent a

Plaintiff will need to prove all four elements of negligence exist (Siegrist, 2022, slide 3). When

thinking of the elements of negligence it is like a math formula each element needs to be there

for the Plaintiff to prove liability. Siegrist (2022, slide 3) lists “duty, breach, causation, and

damages/injury as the four elements of negligence.”

First duty needs to be established in the sense of what level was owed to the Plaintiff, and

then if there was a duty owed to the Plaintiff how did the Defendant breach that duty (Siegrist,

2022, slide 4). Siegrist (2022, slide 5) further explains how to know if the duty was breached
through a series of questions such as “1. What are the types of risks? 2. What is reasonable care

in the situation? And 3. was the risk foreseeable?” Duty and breach of duty alone don’t establish

negligence in a situation (Siegrist, 2022, slide 6).

Causation will link the duty and the breach of duty together. This means the Plaintiff can

show the injury was foreseeable (Siegrist, 2022, slide 6). Was there a way to foresee the injury as

being likely to happen is what is being evaluated in causation according to Siegrist (2022, slide

5). Finally, damages will look at the real injury or harm caused by negligence to a person or

property, and it is relevant to know harm in the case of negligence does not have to be physical

(Siegrist, 2022, 7). Examples of harm or injury may include, “past and future pain and suffering,

physical impairment, medical care, and loss of earning capacity,” (Siegrist, 2022, slide 7). In the

case of the injured athlete suing the school district and the umpires we will want to analyze the

situation through these four elements to determine the duty owed, if it was breached, the

causation, and the harm or injury that resulted.

When judging the duty there first needs to be established the “status” of the injured

person (Siegrist, 2022, slide 12). According to Seigrist (2022, slide 12) we are looking to

understand who the injured party is, and in this case the student athlete (P) is the injured party.

Then we want to know why they are at the facility (Siegrist, 2022, slide 12)? In this case the

student athlete was there for a playoff game of softball. The “status” of someone using a facility

can be determined by them either being an Invitee, Licensee, or a Trespasser (Siegrist, 2022,

slide 13). The level of care is then decided based on their status. For example, an Invitee will be

given the highest level of care while a Trespasser will be given the lowest level of care (Siegrist,

2022, slide 14 & 16). In the case of the student athlete, Trespasser, can be eliminated because,

the athlete was not, “intentionally or without consent,” using the softball field (Siegrist, 2022,
slide 16). Next, we can eliminate, Licensee, from the status of the student athlete as we can see

the athlete was not using the field for their own purpose, but instead using it for the purpose of

the softball playoffs (Siegrist, 2022, slide 15). This leaves the status of the student athlete as an

Invitee. This is “someone who has an expressed or implied invitation to enter or use another's

premise for owners' benefit,” aka the softball playoffs (Siegrist, 2022, slide 14). Now that the

status of the student athlete has been determined we can establish if the duty was breached. We

will want to review the umpire and the school district separately to gauge if the umpire owed the

same level of duty to the injured athlete as the school district did?

As an Invitee the duty owed as mentioned above is the highest level of protection or

standard of care. Siegrist mentions (2022, slide 14) an Invitee is owed a duty of being kept safe

from unreasonable risk of harm. In the case of the student athlete, the school district must

maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances (Siegrist, 2022,

14). For the school district to be found liable the school district must have knowledge of the

danger (Siegrist, 2022, slide 14). What we want to focus on here is was there a failure by the

school district to keep the student athlete safe from unreasonable risk of harm (Siegrist, 2022,

18)?

In the case involving the open holes with no covers or caps, there should have been

obvious knowledge of the facility of the possible risks involved. Those converting the baseball

field to a softball field should have known if the holes were covered by caps or covers because

they were the ones who removed the baseball bases leaving them open and uncovered (Siegrist,

2022, slide 17). Under the circumstances in this case the student athlete would expect the field to

be properly assembled since it was the school district's job to convert and assemble the field to

be usable for play. The school district should have checked the field prior to use to make sure all
bases were capped or covered (Siegrist, 2022, slide 4 & 5). By checking the field before play,

they would have been made aware of the lack of caps or covers on the baseball bases. Here the

school district does owe the student athlete a general duty, which is intrinsic in the circumstance

that the field would be assembled properly for playoff play (Siegrist, 2022, slide 4). Here we can

assess there was an act of omission on the school district to provide a safe field, by failing to

inspect the playing field before the game started (Siegrist, 2022, slide 4). It is clear there was a

breach of duty regarding the school district as that general duty to the athlete wasn’t upheld, they

should have done pregame field inspection. We can further break this down through the process

of answering those three questions mentioned above to determine if the duty was breached.

First, what are the types of risks? Well in this case the P would assume inherent risks to

maybe sliding on the base and possibly getting a fractured ankle that way. That type of risk is in

the nature of the game (Siegrist, 2022, slide 5). However, the P wouldn’t assume the risk of

falling into the not properly covered hole. That risk would be considered non-inherent, as the

field was expected to be properly inspected and assembled prior to playing by the school district

(Siegrist, 2022, slide 5). Next, we want to ask the question what is reasonable care in this

situation? Well, we have already established as an Invitee the school district was to give the P the

highest level of care, that would have been considered reasonable and prudent under the

circumstances (Siegrist, 2022, slide 5). In this case the reasonable and prudent level of care

would have been to have the field inspected prior to play. Lastly, it's important to find out if the

risk was foreseeable? Meaning could the school district foretell if the hole wasn’t covered

someone might fall into it (Seigrist, 2022, slide 5). The school district might not have known

specifically the injury that might result from someone falling into the uncovered hole, but it's

reasonable to foresee an open hole while people are running over it could create a problem of
some nature (Siegrist, 2022, slide 5). From answering the questions, we can clearly gather there

was a duty owed and the duty was breached.

Siegrist (2022, slide 6) states answering that question of foreseeability is what brings us

to the causation. With causation there needs to be a clear understanding that the duty and breach

of duty resulted in the harm; “The harm must be the natural, direct and uninterpreted

consequence of the breach,” (Seigrist, 2022, slide 6). In the case of the school districts, we can

see they owed the athlete a duty as an Invitee. We can also see they failed to provide reasonable

and prudent care under the circumstances. Based off that we can deduce that if there had been a

proper duty owed to the P there wouldn’t have been a direct result of harm. The lack of duty to

foresee the possible threat of the open hole did cause harm to the P (Seigrist, 2022, slide 6). The

causation will lead us into the last element of negligence, damages.

Damage according to Siegrist (2022, slide 7) is “injury, loss or deterioration caused by

negligence in respect to a person or property.” For this element of negligence were looking at the

real injury or harm. In the case of the athlete, we can see there was physical harm in the severely

fractured ankle. Invites, as mentioned previously, are deserving of the utmost quality of care,

meaning the field she was on should have been maintained in a reasonably safe condition under

the circumstances. The circumstance was a playoff game for softball where the field should have

been properly assembled from the conversion of baseball to softball. There was a lack of prior

field inspection by the school district to ensure that the playing field was in a safe condition to

use, and the injury was a natural result of negligence. It is appropriate to say the athlete does win

against the school district for her case of negligence as it has been established through the four

elements of negligence, they have been found liable to have neglected to perform their duty
owed properly. Now the school district in this case can be held liable for the injury to the athlete,

but are the umpires also liable to the athlete?

In the case of the umpires, they are a contractor for the school district, so their duty is

going to be different than that of the school district. According to Des Peres Parks and

Recreation (n.d.) a softball umpires “essential duties and responsibilities” are to 1. “Maintain a

clean and safe environment by monitoring the fields constantly and addressing any safety or

cleanliness issues immediately”. and 2. “Report problems, suggestions, or equipment issues

immediately to the direct supervisor.” From these job requirements it can be established that the

umpires in this case did owe a general duty to the athlete to use reasonable care (Siegrist, 2022,

slide 4). The duty owed is evident by the athlete/referee relationship in the situation. Now the

question is did the umpire breach their duty owed. Let’s review the breach of duty questions

mentioned previously.

By an act of omission (Siegrist, 2022, slide 4), it would seem the umpire failed to provide

that general duty owed to the athlete since they didn’t 1. monitor the fields constantly or address

safety issues, and 2. didn’t report a problem or equipment issue immediately (Siegrist, 2022,

slide 4 & Des Peres Parks and Recreation, n.d.). Here in the case of inherent and noninherent risk

(Siegrist, 2022, slide 5) it was the job of the umpire to be aware of the noninherent risks around

i.e., checking to make sure the field was properly assembled. The umpire doesn’t have to spell

out the inherent risks to the player but did fail to know of the inherent risk on the field (Siegrist,

2022, slide 5). The reasonable care in this situation was to be continuously checking the field for

safety issues or equipment problems and reporting them immediately. In this case there was not a

level of reasonable or prudent care given to the athlete by the umpire (Siegrist, 2022, slide 5).

Lastly, could this risk have been foreseeable by the umpire (Siegrist, 2022, slide 5)? Due to their
job requirements this risk should have been foreseeable as they were to monitor the field

consistently, which would have shown them the error in the assembling of the field conversion.

After walking through the breach of duty we can see there was in fact a duty owed and there was

a breach in properly administering that duty.

Now causation will link the duty owed to the duty breached. The causation in the case of

the umpire is evident as the failure to properly provide the duty of continually monitoring the

field and reporting the problem of the open hole did cause an injury to the athlete. As Siegrist

mentions (2022, slide 6) “the harm must be the natural, direct or uninterrupted consequence of

the breach,”; in this case we can see the injury resulted from a direct failure to provide proper

field monitoring or reporting of equipment/field issues. With all three elements of negligence

present the only thing missing is the actual damage done.

It is clear the failure to monitor the field continually and inspect for problems led to

damage done to the athlete. Again, as mentioned previously by Siegrist (2022, slide 7) damage is

“injury, loss or deterioration caused by negligence in respect to person or property.” We can see

from the negligence in providing reasonable and prudent care by the umpire resulted in harm

done to the athlete. That damage resulted in pain, physical impairment, and medical care

(Siegrist, 2022, slide 7) from the fractured ankle to the athlete. It is appropriate to say the athlete

does win against the umpires for her case of negligence as it has been established through the

four elements of negligence, they have been found liable to have neglected to perform their duty

owed properly.

To conclude, in my opinion, the school district and the umpire both owed a separate duty

to the student athlete. In the case of the school district, they owed the highest level of care as the

student athlete was an Invitee. They failed to properly inspect the field prior to playing. Their
failure to properly inspect the field caused damage to the student athlete's ankle resulting in

harm. In my opinion there are grounds to sue the school district and have them found to be liable

for the injuries sustained. I also believe the umpires should be sued as well for negligence. The

umpires also had a general duty owed to the student athlete. They were required to continually

monitor and report issues immediately regarding safety of the field. It's evident there was a lack

of reasonable care given or prudency as there was no report given by the umpires as to the

noninherent risk of the holes in the field. Both the school and the umpires should have known

there was this risk and therefore could have avoided the potential issues or harm from having

open holes in the field. While the student athlete has a case to win against both the umpires and

the school district, the judgment according to Siegrist (2022, slide 7) could be different for

umpires and the school district. In my opinion they are both liable for the negligence in different

regards (Siegrist, 2022, slide 7).

 Reference List

Des Peres Park and Recreation. (n.d). City of Des Peres Job Description. Desperesmo. Softball-

Umpire-Job-Description

Siegrist, A. A. (2022). Negligence: Application to Sport and Sport Facilities (Premise Liability)

[PowerPoint slides 4,6,12,13,14,15,16, & 17]. PowerPoint. RSM 337 8 Negligence To

sport facility.pdf

Siegrist, A. A. (2022). Negligence [PowerPoint slides 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7]. PowerPoint. RSM 337 7

Negligence.pdf