Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Team, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a hot dog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during games?

A) The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by hot dog because the tossing of the hot dogs was a customary event of which the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
B) The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent part of the sport whether by baseball or by hot dog.
C) The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
D) The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not immediately report his injuries to stadium officials.
E) The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hot dog by attending the game.

Question

Kiara Eldridge · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : E, Explanation :  The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense and ruled that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hot dog by attending the game, leading to a reconsideration of the case.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions