Essay - Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers if You Have any Questions...

NOBLE v. LOS ANGELES DODGERS

***** you have any questions about this paper, please contact our customer service department.

NOBLE v. LOS ***** DODGERS

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs Philip and Marlene Noble, in company with one David McIntosh, attended a night baseball game at Dodgers Stadium. After the ***** had ended and as they were returning to their car in the stadium parking lot, *****y observed, what according ***** them, ***** two drunks standing by the car--one w***** vomiting and one was urinating on the car. Plaintiff ***** Noble remonstrated ***** the individuals, whereupon the two began to shout obscenities. When David McIntosh approached ***** miscreants ***** of them struck him. Philip was knocked down and injured when he attempted to intercede in defense of David *****. The actual number of persons involved in this melee is not made clear ***** the record.

In an action brought against the Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. (Dodgers), the jury awarded compensa*****ry damages to Philip for his injuries and to ***** for ***** emotional distress which she suffered in witnessing the injury to her husb*****. The jury, however, found that plaintiff Philip ***** 55 percent responsible for his injuries and that Marlene was 35 ***** responsible for her *****. The Dodgers appealed.

II. ISSUE

***** the Los Angeles Dodgers liable for the criminal acts ***** third parties, absent a showing of negligence or ***** special relationship?

III. DECISION

No, the Los Angeles ***** were not liable f***** the ***** acts ***** third *****, absent a showing o***** negligence or a ***** relationship.

IV. REASONING

In finding that the Los Angeles Dodgers were not liable, the court based its decision on several facts. First, as the court *****ed, a lan*****er is not an insurer of ***** safety of persons on his property. However, a l*****ndowner does have a duty ***** take reas*****able steps to protect invitees from foreseeable in***** even to the extent of controlling ***** conduct of third parties. Next, as the court noted, it is a sad commentary but ***** can be said that in ***** day and age anyone can foresee or expect that a crime will ***** committed at any time ***** at any place in the more populous are***** of the country. That fact alone, however, is not enough to impose liability on a property owner when a crime does ***** fact occur ***** h***** or her *****."

Thus, in order to establish liability, ***** ***** must prove more than abstract negligence unconnected to the injury. Although *****re had been 5 reported fights in the ***** lot during the preceding 66 night games at Dodger Stadium, past incidents of misconduct on the part ***** attendees were, however, ***** frequent inside the stadium than outside.

Third, ***** ***** ***** that it was not necessary to discuss here whether the Dodgers, because of the *****ability of such incidents, had any duty to protect plaintiffs against ***** **********. *****s offered no evidence ***** there were any reas*****able steps that the ***** could have taken