¶ … Analsysis

Possible Cases

The only valid torts causes of action are: (1) Malik vs. Daniel for battery in connection with Daniel's shoving Malik; (2) Malik vs. Stadium for negligence in connection with failing to maintain the integrity of the protective railing that gave way; (3) Daniel vs. Woman in Line for slander in connection with her verbal accusation of his supposedly supplying his son with alcohol; and (4) Daniel vs. Malik for assault in connection with being accosted by a firearm. There are also several invalid torts causes of action, such as: (1) Injured Fan vs. Stadium for injuries sustained while watching the game; (2) Malik vs. Daniel in connection with being shot by Daniel; and (3) Daniel vs. Stadium in connection with the negligent furnishing of sugary drinks instead of diet drinks to Daniel and Rubin.

Legal Analyses of Successful Cases

Malik will prevail in his suit against Daniel for battery because Daniel shoved him in retaliation rather than in self-defense or the actual defense of Rubin. Malik will prevail in his suit against the stadium for negligent failure to maintain the railing because the rail should have been capable of withstanding the foreseeable force of a fan falling against it. Daniel will prevail against the Woman in Line for slander because her public statement was injurious to Daniel and actually caused his economic damages (i.e. loss of his job). Daniel will prevail in his suit against Malik because Malik's brandishing his firearm placed Daniel in reasonable fear for his life.

Legal Analyses of Unsuccessful Cases

The Injured Fan will not prevail in a case against the Stadium for injuries sustained while watching the game because injuries occurring in this manner are within the scope of risk assumed by fans in this setting. Malik will be unsuccessful in his suit against Daniel for battery in connection with his being shot by Daniel because Daniel was acting in self-defense and was acting reasonably based on the belief that Malik's weapon was loaded. Daniel will be unsuccessful in his suit against the Stadium in connection with the negligent furnishing of sugary drinks instead of diet drinks because the risks associated with diabetes were not disclosed to the worker and not of the type of risks that would be considered foreseeable absent specific knowledge.