A Michigan state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a lower court and found that the corporation that owns the Indiana Pacers basketball team and some of its players did not have an obligation to protect a worker from the actions of a fan, who threw a chair that struck the worker in the infamous “Palace Brawl.”
The “brawl” occurred on Nov.19, 2004, during a game between the Indiana Pacers and the Detroit Pistons at the Palace of Auburn Hills in which players for both teams emptied the bench and were joined in the melee by fans. The game was cancelled by officials and the players were directed to leave the playing floor through a tunnel.
Plaintiff Julie Socia was working at the Palace that night. At the time of her injury, she was helping to keep the tunnel clear so that the players could exit. As the players were leaving, they confronted another spectator who the players said threw beer at them. As the players engaged with spectators near the tunnel, another spectator threw a chair, which struck the plaintiff on the head, causing physical injuries that required ongoing treatment.
Socia sued the Pacers Basketball Corporation as well as players Jermaine O’Neal and David Harrison, alleging negligence and gross negligence.
After the circuit court granted the Pacers’ motion for summary disposition, the plaintiff appealed, suggesting that the defendants owed her a basic duty of care to not endanger her. The defendants countered that the issue of duty centers on whether they had a duty to protect others from the criminal acts of a third person, the fan.
“Ordinarily, whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court,” wrote the appeals court, citing Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545, 552; 739 NW2d 313 (2007). “If there is no duty, summary disposition is proper. Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 130; 631 NW2d 308 (2001).”
The appeals court went on to note that “to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) that the defendant breached the duty, (3) that the defendant’s breach of the duty caused the plaintiff injuries, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages. Lelito v Monroe, 273 Mich App 416, 419; 729 NW2d 564 (2006).
“Policy factors that should be considered to determine whether a duty should be imposed include the relationship of the parties, the foreseeability of the harm, the burden that would be imposed on the defendant, and the nature of the risk presented. In re Certified Question from Fourteenth Dist Court of Appeals of Texas, 479 Mich 498, 508; 740 NW2d 206 (2007). However, the most important factor considered determining a duty is the relationship of the parties. Id. at 505; Eichhorn v Lamphere School Dist, 166 Mich App 527, 545; 421 NW 2d 230 (1988).”
Where “the criminal acts of a third party” are involved, the plaintiff must show that “a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff or the defendant and the third party. Graves v Warner Bros, 253 Mich App 486, 493; 655 NW2d 195 (2002).”
In the instant case, Socia “failed to establish the existence of a special relationship with defendants giving rise to a duty to protect her from the criminal acts of a third party. Although plaintiff assisted the Pacers’ departure from the basketball court and was in proximity to them during their continued confrontation with spectators, the plaintiff never alleged that she entrusted her safety to the control of defendants or lost control to protect herself. Graves, supra, 253 Mich App at 494.”
Among the other arguments examined by the appeals court was the plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred in deciding that there was not a contractual duty of care.
“According to plaintiff, language in a sample standard player’s contract amounts to independent evidence of this contractual duty. Plaintiff argues that this contract obligates National Basketball Association (NBA) players to conduct themselves according to the highest standards of citizenship and sportsmanship, and not do anything that is detrimental to the best interests of the team or league.
“However, a negligence claim based on misfeasance of a contractual obligation is the ‘violation of a legal duty separate and distinct from the contractual obligation.’ Fultz, supra, 470 Mich at 467. Tort actions based on a contract and brought by a plaintiff who is not a party to that contract are analyzed by using a ‘separate and distinct’ standard. Id. The threshold consideration in this analysis is whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff that is separate and distinct from the defendant’s contractual obligations. Id. Plaintiff failed to cross this threshold.
“The circuit court found, and we agree, that the defendants owed no duty to plaintiff because no relationship existed between them. Absent a separate and distinct duty from defendants’ contractual obligations, no tort action based on a contract could stand. Fultz, supra 470 Mich at 467.”
Julie Socia v. Pacers Basketball Corporation, Jermaine O’Neal, and David Harrison; Ct.App.Mich.; No. 284845, 2010 Mich. App. LEXIS 267; 2/9/10
