Dennis is not guilty of battery.

The question is whether Dennis is guilty of battery if he did not intend to hit Penny.

Battery is the intentional harmful or offensive contact of another person.

Here, Dennis did not intentionally try to hit penny in the head with the baseball. For a person to be
guilty of battery, they must intentionally make harmful contact with the plaintiff. Dennis intended to hit
the ball but did not have the intent to hit any one person, because Dennis lacked the required intent, he
can not be guilty of battery.

Dennis is not guilty of battery because he lacked intent.

Dennis did not act negligently.

The issue is whether Dennis while acting within the course of his duty, is negligent for hitting a person
outside of the stadium.

A person is negligent if they owe a duty to pedestrians and do not act with standard care of a
reasonable prudent person. If the person does have a duty, they must be the cause in fact and
proximate cause.

Here, Dennis owed the standard of a reasonable baseball player, which did not include adding taller
fences. Dennis did not owe a special duty to pedestrians walking in front of the stadium. There are no
precautions that a reasonable prudent baseball could take to prevent Penny from being hit.

Dennis did not act negligently toward Penny when he hit her with the baseball.

Flies stadium is not vicariously liable for the actions of Dennis.

The issue is whether the flies stadium is liable for actions of its workers.

An employer is liable for all actions of its employee acting within the line of their duty.

Here, Dennis is a baseball player which requires for him to hit baseballs, so when he hit the baseball in
question, he was acting within the line of his job. Therefore, if Dennis committed battery, the stadium
would be vicariously liable for his actions. Dennis is not guilty of battery, so the stadium will not be held
liable for the battery.

The stadium is not liable for the battery committed by Dennis.

The stadium was negligent.

The issue is whether the stadium acted negligently by not incorporating taller fences.
A company is negligent if it owes a duty to pedestrians and does not act with standard care of a
reasonable prudent company.

Here, Flies stadium acted in a manner that was similar to other ball parks in its minor league. In 40 years
there have been only 30 balls to fly out of the park, but in the past ten there have been more that 15
balls to leave the park. Flies was placed on notice and owed a duty to act but decided not. Other parks in
Japan that have had similar experiences, have installed higher fences. Because Flies was placed on
notice and decided to not act, it is was negligent.

Flies is negligent for not installing taller fences.