Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins."For this question only, assume that, on appeal, the court holds that the question of whether Dooley committed a battery is a jury issue. The judgment entered on the directed verdict in favor of the City Robins should then be
reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find the City Robins vicariously liable for a battery committed by Dooley in the course of his employment.  reversed and the case remanded, only if a jury could find negligence on the part of the Robins team management.  affirmed, because an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's battery.  affirmed, if Dooley's act was a knowing violation of team rules.
Question: Dooley was a pitcher for the City Robins, a professional baseball team. While Dooley was throwing warm-up pitches on the sidelines during a game, he was continuously heckled by some spectators seated in the stands above the dugout behind a wire mesh fence. On several occasions, Dooley turned and looked directly at the hecklers with a scowl on his face, but the heckling continued. Dooley wound up as though he was preparing to pitch in the direction of his catcher; however, the ball traveled from his hand, at high speed, at a 90-degree angle from the line to the catcher and directly toward the hecklers in the stands. The ball passed through the wire mesh fence and struck Patricia, one of the hecklers. Patricia brought an action for damages against Dooley and the City Robins, based upon negligence and battery. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the battery count. The jury found for the defendants on the negligence count because the jury determined that Dooley could not foresee that the ball would pass through the wire mesh fence. Patricia has appealed the judgments on the battery counts, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdicts for Dooley and the City Robins."For this question only, assume that, on appeal, the court holds that the question of whether Dooley committed a battery is a jury issue. The judgment entered on the directed verdict in favor of the City Robins should then be
A. reversed and the case remanded, because a jury could find the City Robins vicariously liable for a battery committed by Dooley in the course of his employment. 
B. reversed and the case remanded, only if a jury could find negligence on the part of the Robins team management. 
C. affirmed, because an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's battery. 
D. affirmed, if Dooley's act was a knowing violation of team rules.
Answer: