As many of our readers know, I just received my JD and am currently studying for the bar (most of the time).  Law is basically the only thing that goes through my head these days (besides this stupid blog of course).  NQTC reader Malach, who is also studying for the bar this summer, decided to analyze the Cavs collapse in legal terms.  Inspired by The Sports Guy’s twitter question this morning: “can Lebron James sue Mike Brown for negligence?”, Malach embarked on a detailed legal analysis of why Brown should be liable:

Lebron James will be able to recover against Mike Brown for his negligent coaching decisions and strategy during the 2009 Eastern Conference Finals. The issue is whether Mike Brown breached his duty of care owed to his team, specifically his starting small forward Lebron James, and whether the breach caused the Cavs to be eliminated from the playoffs.

Mike Brown, as a professional basketball coach, owes a duty of care to Lebron James. James as a member of his team was a foreseeable plaintiff in that Browns decisions directly affected James. Brown is required to possess the knowledge and skill of a member of the NBA coaching profession. (ironically this is supposed to be a higher degree of care than the reasonable person standard; however, one could argue that the average person possesses a greater degree of coaching skill than the average NBA coach as evidenced by some of the coaching talent currently in the NBA). In this case, Brown’s decisions to leave the Magic’s three-point shooters open and not run plays on offense fall below the applicable standard of care. An NBA coach is presumed to posses the knowledge and skill not make the aforementioned coaching decisions.

Brown’s breach of his duty must have been the actual and proximate causes of the injury. While one may argue that Brown’s breach alone would not have been sufficient to cause the Cavs to be eliminated (the disappearance of the Cavs role-players and officiating might have been equally responsible), his conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury, thus a legal cause in fact.
However, Brown may limit his liability by showing his conduct was not the proximate cause of the Cavs being eliminated. A defendant is generally liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts. This is satisfied by a showing that the injury was foreseeable. In this case, there were no intervening forces between Brown’s coaching decisions and the Cavs being eliminated, thus the injury was foreseeable.

Brown may not assert the defense of contributory negligence on Lebron’s part as evidence by his statistical performance during the series, averaging 39 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists.
Finally, Lebron will be able to attach Danny Ferry and the Cavs as defendant’s under the theory of respondeat superior. An employer will be vicariously liable for tortuous acts committed during the scope of employment. Brown’s negligence occurred while he was coaching the Cavs during games and presumably during pre-game meetings. Thus, the Cavs will be vicariously liable for Brown’s negligence.

If any readers are lawyers or law students, they will see this for what it is: an A answer on a Torts exam.  The only flaw in this case is that you have to assume he would argue the other players on the team were far more negligent, since it was also on them to execute.  I’m not trying to defend soon-to-be-former coach Brown, but blaming it all on one guy seems kind of harsh.  In real terms of where LeBron would collect his damages, you would have to think Brown would sue those role players for contribution and have some of it paid by them.

All in all this is a well-reasoned analysis based on logic and not just finger-pointing.  Just kidding, it’s definitely finger-pointing.