Bain v. Gillispie
357 N.W.2d 47 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An athletic official owes no legal duty of care to non-participants, such as fans or businesses, for officiating decisions made during a game, and such parties are merely incidental beneficiaries of the official's employment contract with a sports league, precluding them from bringing a lawsuit.
Facts:
- James C. Bain served as a referee for a college basketball game between the University of Iowa and Purdue University on March 6, 1982.
- During the game, Bain called a foul on an Iowa player, which resulted in Purdue making free throws that won them the game in the last minute.
- John and Karen Gillispie owned Hawkeye John’s Trading Post, a private novelty store specializing in University of Iowa sports memorabilia.
- The Gillispies' business had no official association with the University of Iowa or its sports programs.
- The Gillispies claimed that Iowa's loss, which they attributed to Bain's call, prevented the team from winning the Big Ten Conference championship.
- This, in turn, allegedly destroyed a potential market for championship-related memorabilia the Gillispies intended to sell.
- A few days after the game, the Gillispies began marketing T-shirts depicting a man with a rope around his neck captioned, “Jim Bain Fan Club.”
Procedural Posture:
- James C. Bain filed a lawsuit against John and Karen Gillispie in an Iowa trial court seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- The Gillispies filed a counterclaim against Bain for negligence ('referee malpractice') and breach of contract.
- Bain filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the Gillispies' counterclaim.
- The trial court granted Bain's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the counterclaim.
- The Gillispies, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Iowa, with Bain as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sports referee owe a legal duty to a sports memorabilia business, whose profits are indirectly affected by the referee's officiating, such that the business can sue the referee for negligence or as a third-party beneficiary of the referee's employment contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Snell, J.
No. A sports referee does not owe a legal duty to a third-party business like the Gillispies', and the business is not a third-party beneficiary of the referee's employment contract. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must first prove the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant. The existence of a duty is determined by the foreseeability of harm. The court found it was not reasonably foreseeable that a referee's call would cause financial harm to a local memorabilia store, as a referee's purpose is to apply rules to the game, not to create a marketplace for others. Holding otherwise would open officials to limitless liability from any disappointed fan or business, creating an "uncharted morass" of litigation. The court therefore held that, absent corruption or bad faith, no tort for "referee malpractice" exists. Regarding the contract claim, the court determined that the Gillispies were, at best, incidental beneficiaries of any contract between Bain and the Big Ten Conference. To have enforceable rights, a third party must be a direct beneficiary (either a donee or creditor beneficiary), meaning the contracting parties intended to confer a direct benefit upon them. There was no evidence of such intent here.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent protecting sports officials from civil liability for errors in judgment made during athletic contests. By refusing to recognize a tort of "athletic official's malpractice," the court insulates officiating decisions from judicial second-guessing, which preserves the finality of game outcomes and prevents a flood of litigation from disgruntled fans and other affected parties. The decision reinforces the legal principle that a duty of care is not limitless and does not extend to all foreseeable economic harms, particularly those that are remote and indirect. This ruling ensures that officials can perform their duties without fear of being sued by anyone who suffers a financial or emotional loss as a result of a controversial call.
Unlock the full brief for Bain v. Gillispie