Originally Posted by Avles
As a matter of law, really? Could you cite the relevant law there?
I'm pretty sure that if Bob Hockeycoach huddles the team at the center of the rink for a post-practice pep talk, and Joe Hockeyplayer decides to fire a puck into the middle of the huddle, and he injures someone, Joe Hockeyplayer could potentially be held responsible for that action. I don't think there's a "dude, you were on the rink" defense.
Now maybe this incident didn't rise to that level of malice/negligence-- but that's a question of fact, not of law, right?
Again, this was a summary judgment motion. I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, the judge was just holding that it's conceivable that the defendant might be liable. Don't see how you can fault that based on what we know.
No, I won't be citing the "relevant law." On account of how I don't wish to be bothered.
As I said, we cannot be sure without seeing the papers exactly what occurred. But I think you would agree that if the captain (who may or may not have had authority to "end" a team practice) said, "OK, everybody let's go," and someone hit another serve, then summary judgment would be appropriate.
Remember, it isn't enough to show there are some facts are in dispute. The disputed facts have to be material. You can't resist summary judgment by saying "Well, it's conceivable the defendant might be liable." You have to show what exactly the trier of fact would have to decide so plaintiff can prevail and that those disputed facts are material.
That's what they said in the correspondence course I took at Diploma Mill Technical Institute, anyway.
Heck, if you told me this group had booked two hours and the facility horn hadn't yet sounded, that would be enough for me to conclude as a matter of law that *anyone standing on the court during that two hour block assumed the risk of being struck by a tennis ball,* no matter what the captain said.