Heenan v. Comcast Spectacor, 2006 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 138 Answer: 1. How does Heenan demonstrate that there was negligence by Comcast Spectacor? 2. Comcast Spectacor performs a limited risk assessment/evaluation. List the actions they do to demonstrate they understood there were risks present? 3. How do the circumstances outlined in the previous questions not align with "ordinary negligence"?

Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, 246 Mich. App. 645 *; 635 N.W.2d 219 **; 2001 Mich. App. LEXIS 146 *** Answer: 1. What are the considerations that lead to the creation of limited duty (or the "baseball rule")? 2. Does limited duty (or the "baseball rule") align with or go against the elements of negligence as we've discussed? Justify your position. 3. Do you think the court was correct in using persuasive precedent to decide this case? Justify your position.

Lowe v. California Professional Baseball, 56 Cal. App. 4th 112 *; 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105 **; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 532 ***; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5283; 97 Daily Journal DAR 8521 Answer: 1. Why did limited duty (or the "baseball rule") influence the lower court's decision to grant the Quakes' motion for summary judgement? 2. Why did Lowe argue that his injury shouldn't be covered by limited duty (or the "baseball rule")? 3. What is Tremor's role in the game? How does this make an important lesson for sport managers?