3/5 While throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a professional baseball game, a pitcher was continuously heckled by some spectators Sealed behind a wire mesh fence in the stands above the dugout. On several occasions, the pitcher turned and looked directly at the hecklers with @ scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. The pitcher then wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher, but he threw a fastball toward the hecklers instead. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck a woman who was one of the hecklers. The woman brought an action against the pitcher and the team to recover damages for negligence and battery. The trial court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants on the battery claim. The jury found for the de fendants on the negligence claim because the jury determined that the pitcher could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. The woman has appealed the judgment on the battery claim, contending that the trial court erred in entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants. On appeal, should the court affirm the judgment as a matter of law entered in favor of the pitcher on the baitery claim? OLA: iy 8. ic. iC) D. Yes, if a jury could find on the evidence that the pitcher was mentally ill and that his act was the product of his mental illness. No, because a jury could find that the pitcher's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and th cause of the woman's physical harm. No, if a jury could find on the evidence that the pitcher intended to cause the hecklers to fear being hit. Yes, because the jury found that the pitcher could not foresee that the ball would pass through the fence. ) End ) suspend (J Feedback S@@eeeoeodcdeod