In Schlensky v. Wrigley, plaintiff William Shlensky alleged that:

since night baseball was first played in 1935, nineteen of the twenty major league teams have scheduled night games; in 1966, out of a total of 1,620 games in the major leagues, 932 were played at night, where every member of the major leagues, other than the Chicago Cubs (operating as the Chicago National League Ball Club, a corporation), scheduled substantially all of its home games in 1966 at night, exclusive of opening days, Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and days prohibited by league rules for the specific purpose of maximizing attendance and thereby maximizing revenue and income; the Cubs, in the years 1961-1965, sustained operating losses from its direct baseball operations, which he attributed to inadequate attendance at Cubs' home games. Shlensky argued that if the directors of the Chicago National League Ball Club continued to refuse to install lights at Wrigley Field and schedule night baseball games, the Cubs would continue to sustain comparable losses and its financial condition will continue to deteriorate. Phillip K. Wrigley, the defendant and President of the Chicago National League Ball Club, argued he refused to install lights because (1) he sought to protect the neighborhood around Wrigley Field from deterioration, parking difficulties at night, and his overall concern for the well-being and relationships with the neighborhood around Wrigley Field that makes Wrigley Field unique and (2) that baseball is a daytime sport to be played in the sunshine. He allegedly stated that he was not interested in whether the Chicago Cubs would benefit financially from such action because of his concern for the neighborhood, but that he would be willing for the team to play night games if a new stadium were built in Chicago. What is the likely result of Shlensky's lawsuit alleging Wrigley breached his duty of care owed to the shareholders of the Chicago National League Ball Club? Does Wrigley have any defense?