Manning v. Grimsley: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
| court                 =  
|court=
| citation             =
|citation=
| date                  =  
|subject=Business Associations
| subject               = Business Associations
|appealed_from=
| appealed_from         =  
|overturned=
| decision_by          =  
|partially_overturned=
| joined_by            =  
|reaffirmed=
| concurrence          =  
|questioned=
| dissent              =  
|criticized=
| concur_dissent        =  
|distinguished=
| overturned            =  
|cited=
| partially_overturned  =  
|followed=
| reaffirmed            =  
|related=
| questioned            =  
|facts=Plaintiff was attending a baseball game and was heckling a pitcher, when pitcher threw a ball that struck the P.
| criticized            =  
|procedural_history=Dist. judge directed verdict for D
| distinguished        =  
|issues=
| cited                =  
|arguments=
| followed              =  
|holding=Vacated and remanded
| related              =  
|judgment=Vacated.
|reasons=Jury could have found that fans' actions constituted "conduct" which interfered with employee's performance of work.
|rule=
|comments=In Mass. when a plaintiff wants to recover from an employer, it must be shown that the employee's assault was in response to the plaintiff's conduct which was presently interfering wit the employee's ability to perform his duties successfully.
|case_text_links=
|Court_opinion_parts=
}}
}}
'''Facts''': Plaintiff was attending a baseball game and was heckling a pitcher, when pitcher threw a ball that struck the P.
'''Procedural History''': Dist. judge directed verdict for D
'''Holding''': Vacated and remanded
'''Reasons''': Jury could have found that fans' actions constituted "conduct" which interfered with employee's performance of work.
'''Judgment''': Vacated.
'''Comments''': In Mass. when a plaintiff wants to recover from an employer, it must be shown that the employee's assault was in response to the plaintiff's conduct which was presently interfering wit the employee's ability to perform his duties successfully.

Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023

Manning v. Grimsley
Court
Citation
Date decided

Facts

Plaintiff was attending a baseball game and was heckling a pitcher, when pitcher threw a ball that struck the P.

Procedural History

Dist. judge directed verdict for D

Holding

Vacated and remanded

Judgment

Vacated.

Reasons

Jury could have found that fans' actions constituted "conduct" which interfered with employee's performance of work.

Comments

In Mass. when a plaintiff wants to recover from an employer, it must be shown that the employee's assault was in response to the plaintiff's conduct which was presently interfering wit the employee's ability to perform his duties successfully.