JayCee Graff and American Ninja Warriors case

JayCee Graff and American Ninja Warriors case

The parties involved are JayCee Graff and American Ninja Warriors. Graff, who is the plaintiff in the case, is likely to file a lawsuit against the American Ninja Warriors for negligence while participating in ratchet coaster. Jaycee Graff, a former professional quarterback in the professional Fantasia Football League, aspired to be a recognized athlete in the American Ninja Warriors organization, which set up obstacle courses that gauge the strength and endurance of the athletes. She sustained an injury while participating at a city event held in Cleveland on August 19, 2019. The obstacle courses offered by the American Ninja Warriors entails climbing, jumping along with the other upper arm strength maneuver. All the parts of the courses are situated above the water pool to minimize the injuries to the athlete in case of a fall by enabling them to fall in water instead of falling on a hard object. For the purpose of creating courses, the American Ninja Warriors habitually takes into account the designs of new obstacles submitted by the fans. The approved plans are then integrated into the city courses to test the endurance and strength of the athletes. During the Cleveland competition ratchet coaster, which is a new obstacle was included in the city competition. The new obstacle included a form of aerial ratchet that required to be maneuvered in a circle by arm strength and then locked into place. While participating in the new obstacle, Graff successfully navigated through the first part of the obstacle; however, she failed to reach the trapeze bar after jumping from the ratchet arm. She fell and landed in a manner that her chin struck the edge of the water pool, where she suffered a severe injury that ended her session in the competition. The legal issue at hand is whether Graff would assume the risk of her injury.

Discussion

The tort liability law establishes provision, which helps in determining the party that should be held liable for an injury incurred by one party. A tort is a legal term that explains a violation where one person causes injury or damages to another party. The violations in the tort law liability may result from deliberate actions, negligence, or breach of statutes. The law usually requires the tortfeasor to incur tort liability where they should compensate the victim for the injury incurred by the victim.

The tort liability law is applicable in a situation where the plaintiff seeks compensation over damage caused by the tortfeasor. The law acknowledges that for a tort claim to be well-founded, the defendant must have breached duty against the plaintiff that resultantly contributed to the injury. Torts fall under three distinct categories, which include strict liability tort, negligent tort, together with the product liability tort. The negligent torts typically occur when the actions of the defendant were unreasonably not safe. Likewise, the intentional torts are the wrongs that involve the omission of some necessary actions which the defendant knows would cause damage to the plaintiff. Therefore, tort liability law would be applied in cases that involve negligent tort, intentional crime, and strict liability crime. Moreover, it would be used in a case that fulfills the core components of a tort case. The ingredients include duty, violation of duty, causation along with damage.

Based on the components of the tort liability that determines the liability of the defendant for the injury incurred by the plaintiff, it is most likely that Graff would assume the risk of her injury. The element of causation requires that a plaintiff must prove that the action of the defendant directly contributed to the injury. Despite the admission by the Ninja Warriors engineers on the negligence of the organization to consider how and where some of the shorter contestants would land if they fall while competing in ratchet coaster obstacle, it does not serve as the main reason why Graff fell while participating. Furthermore, the American Ninja Warriors had not foreseen that failure to consider how some of the shorter contestants would result in the injury of the participants when they fall. The point dismisses the application of proximate cause that would help in determining the liability of the organization for the harm incurred by Graff. The injury is out of the scope of the risk that the America Ninja Warriors could have foreseen. Hence it will be a difficulty for Graff to prove that the negligence of the organization was the proximate cause of her injury, and it would, in turn, make her assume the risk of her injury.

Some cases have explained the application of tort liability law to determine the liability of the appellant for the damages incurred by the appellee. For instance, in Morgan v. Kent State, the court ruled that the action of the student was barred by the principle of primary assumption of risk. It further held that the learner was not qualified for the attorney charges and the expenditures for the university’s refusal for admission that were later accepted. The case involves a lawsuit brought by the student in the court of Appeal against the university for negligence, together with negligent recruitment after being punched on the face by his karate instructor. In the case, the court affirmed that for actionable negligence action to be established, the plaintiff must prove that there existed duty, the violation of duty, and the injury that proximately resulted from the negligence. MORGAN V. KENT. Similarly, the court affirmed that as enshrined in principle of common assumption of the risk, the complainant who willingly participates in sporting events assumes the inborn risks of the activity and cannot recover from any damage incurred while participating in the sport. The court ruled on the case, basing its reasoning on the fact that the action of the student was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk while participating in games and recreational activities.

Similarly, Konesky v. Wood county agricultural society has explained the application of tort liability law to determine the liability of the appellant for the damages. The Court of Appeal ruled in the case that the sincere issue of the material of fact as to whether the appellee violated its duty of usual care by allowing the racetrack entrance to remain to unlock precluded summary discernment. Konesky v. Wood county agricultural society. Moreover, it stated that the risk of being trampled by runaway horses was not an intrinsic rise of horse racing, thus barring the application of the principle of primary assumption of risk. In the case, Konesky filed a lawsuit against county agricultural society for sustaining injuries after being trampled by a horse that had escaped from the county fair racetrack through a slot in the fence. The court affirmed in its ruling that in public amusement and entertainment, the types of risks that are covered under the principle of primary assumption involves the risks that are foreseeable along with customary risks of the sport. The plaintiff appealed on the motion of summary judgment granted appellee by the court. While referring to the case of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co, the court reiterated that summary discernment is effective in a scenario where there is no genuine issue of material fact remain to be prosecuted. Grafton v. Ohio. The court ruled in favor of the appellee, therefore, making the appellant assume injury incurred; as a result of being trampled by the horse.

Based on the cases, it is most likely that Graff will assume the risk of her injury following the accident. In both cases, the appellants sustained injuries while engaging in sport, and the court ruled in their cases in favor of their appellees. Since the case of Graff falls within the same domain with the two cases, it is clear that the court would rule in favor of the American Ninja Warriors. Graff voluntarily participated in the Cleveland event with the intent of raising her image to a recognized athlete in the newest sensation American Ninja Warriors. By willingly joining the American Ninja Warriors to participate in their ratchet obstacle course, she disqualified herself from the protection of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The principle specifies that a participant who voluntarily participates in sporting events or recreational activities assumes the risks associated with the activity and cannot reclaim compensation for the injuries sustained while in the game. MORGAN V. KENT.

The results of MORGAN V. KENT, in particular, offer proof that the American Ninja Warriors will not be held accountable for the injuries incurred by Graff while contesting in the ratchet obstacle course. In the case, it was ruled that the principle of common assumption of uncertainty barred the action of the student, and it curtailed the ability of the student to recovery from the injury he sustained after being punched by the karate instructor. MORGAN V. KENT. Both the cases of Graff and Morgan are similar since they all involve injuries in the game after the participants voluntarily engaged in the sport. The same way the court declined that Morgan was not under the protection of the principle of primary assumption of risk, Graff is likely to encounter the same.

Nevertheless, the court may fail to find merit in the argument on its negligence to promote the safety of the participants. The engineers admitted that they did not take the necessary action to consider how short people would fall. Therefore, they failed in their duty, which consequently made the organization breach its mission of ensuring the safety of the participants. Hence the court would not find merit should the organization testify defending its position for not engaging in negligence tort through breaching its duty.

Conclusion

The tort liability law has provided requirements that help in determining whether the tortfeasor is liable to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. In the case, Graff is most likely to assume the risks she incurred while participating in the ratchet obstacle course. She does not qualify for protection by the doctrine of primary risks, and this will make the court to rule in favor of the organization.