Erika Eneman and Amy Nadler v. Pat Richter, Susan Riseling, and David Williams (1998)-case study

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceErika Eneman and Amy Nadler v. Pat Richter, Susan Riseling, and David Williams (1998)-case study

Erika Eneman and Amy Nadler v. Pat Richter, Susan Riseling, and David Williams (1998)-case study

In this case, the petitioners suffered personal injuries at a football game held at Camp Randall Stadium in Wisconsin. Their claim is that the respondents were negligent by closing certain gates to the stadium after the game was concluded (Eneman and Nadler v. Richter et al. [1998]). The respondents were state employees working at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in various capacities. Basing their responses on the common law doctrine of public officer immunity, the respondents filed a motion for a summary judgment. They argued that they were entitled to and covered by the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity as state government employees (Eneman and Nadler v. Richter et al. [1998]). Finding no material factual claims in the appellant's submissions, the circuit court dismissed their suit.

Legal Issues

  1. Did the appellant’s suit against the respondents raise material factual disputes regarding the claim of negligence?
  2. Were the appellees entitled to the asserted public officer immunity or the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity?

Governing Body

The governing body which might rule on this issue is the school district or the relevant association responsible for school activities and athletic events in schools.

Possible Court’s Ruling

What the court might rule is that since the appellants have failed to prove that they had duties but failed to perform them, their claim of negligence cannot stand legal scrutiny and their application is hereby dismissed. The post-game crowd control plan which one of the respondents prepared, for instance, was a discretionary act rather than a duty of care for which they cannot be held liable in torts........GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY