Joe Taxpayer Case Analysis

Joe Taxpayer can make claims for recovery for his injuries against the Bongo, the City of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Does and its owners, and the National Basketball Association (NBA). Taxpayer’s best chance of recovery against all possible defendants will be based on theories of negligence. Determinations of liability under negligence will be fact intensive and likely by left to a jury to decide. Although placing a chance of recovery on a jury is unpredictable, it is likely that Taxpayer will be successful in his claims of negligence against Bongo and the Milwaukee Bucks but unsuccessful in any claim against the City of Milwaukee.

Liability of Bongo
Taxpayer will likely succeed on a claim of negligence or recklessness against Bongo, the mascot

Bongo will likely be held to the ordinary standard of care of care a mascot owes a spectator at a basketball game. It is unlikely that a Wisconsin court would find that Bongo had a limited duty under an adoption of a principle similar to the “baseball rule.” Rather, the court will likely find that Bongo’s actions were not inherent in the sport of basketball. Moreover, There is no evidence that shooting a T-Shirt from a gun into the stands is a common or expected activity of a basketball game the duty of care owed should be anything but that of the ordinary standard of care. There is, however, a question of fact as to what the duty owed is and if Bongo breached that duty. This will require expert testimony as to proper use of the T-shirt gun and proper training. Once this evidence is present a fact finder will likely find that Bongo was negligent in loading the gun in a close proximity to Taxpayer. Moreover, there is clear causation and harm because without Bongo’s negligent act Taxpayer would not have been injured at all, let alone to the extent of requiring several surgeries. Thus, Taxpayer can likely prove a claim of negligence against