Fall Like An Eagle

An arbitration provision may govern a complaint of fans injured at a professional football game, according to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanding the case 

Through a website called “TickPick,” Brandon Gordon purchased nine tickets on December 27, 2021, for the football game scheduled for January 2, 2022, between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Washington Football Team at FedExField in Landover, Maryland. He purchased one ticket for himself, one for his cousin, and seven for friends and stored all of them on his iPhone. On the day of the game, the group of nine drove from New Jersey to FedExField, and Gordon presented the nine tickets at the gate with his iPhone, which allowed the group to enter FedExField to watch the game. After the Eagles won 20 to 16, the group wanted to congratulate the Eagles players, and employees of Contemporary Services Corporation, the company providing security at the stadium, directed them to a location near the tunnel where the Eagles players would be departing from the field to their locker room. As the plaintiffs — Michael Naimoli, Jr., Morgan French, Andrew Collins, and Marissa Santarlasci — leaned against the railing to give congratulatory “high-fives” to the players, the railing collapsed, causing them to fall 5 to 10 feet to the concrete floor of the tunnel and sustain personal injury.

Plaintiffs contended

Michael Naimoli, one of the plaintiffs, submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he never possessed any of the tickets that Gordon had purchased and that he was never “prompted to read terms and conditions which established any sort of contractual relationship with” the defendants. He too concluded, “I never entered into any contract agreeing to mandatory arbitration with any of the Defendants in this lawsuit.”

Maryland law applies

In this case, the Washington Football Team claims that its reliance on Gordon’s apparent authority to act on behalf of the plaintiffs was reasonable, and we agree. When Gordon purchased the nine tickets, he entered into a contract — as we are assuming for this argument — that gave him a limited license to attend the football game. And he agreed that if he were to refuse to consent to the attendant limitations, he would have to “leave or not enter the stadium.” When he gave or sold those tickets with their limitations to the plaintiffs, he could give them no more than he had. And it is undisputed that he did transfer the tickets to the plaintiffs as they used them, albeit from his iPhone, to enter the stadium. Even though Gordon was the purchaser of the tickets, it was reasonable for the Washington Football Team to assume that in purchasing nine tickets, Gordon did so both for himself and for the plaintiffs, as indicated by the purchase of multiple tickets and the plaintiffs’ entry into the stadium by means of those tickets. Indeed, this was consistent with the universal practice of purchasing event tickets both for oneself and for others. Not only was the Washington Football Team’s reliance on Gordon’s agency reasonable, there is also evidence in the record that the plaintiffs assented to Gordon’s agency. The plaintiffs used the tickets on Gordon’s iPhone to enter the stadium, thereby manifesting their acceptance that Gordon had acted and was acting on their behalf in purchasing the tickets and presenting them at the game. Thus, not only was the Washington Football Team’s reliance on Gordon’s agency reasonable, its belief was traceable to the plaintiffs’ manifestations —their use of the tickets to enter the stadium. This is all that is required for apparent authority under Maryland law. 

Back to the district court

On remand, the district court thus should conduct such proceedings as necessary to resolve the disputed facts that, in this case, are necessary to determine whether Gordon entered into a contract with the Washington Football Team that included its terms and conditions and the arbitration clause.

 (Mike Frisch)