New York Law Review

Tag: Baseball

  • Roberts v. Boys and Girls Republic, Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 889 (2008): Assumption of Risk in Recreational Activities

    10 N.Y.3d 889 (2008)

    Participants in recreational activities assume the inherent risks of those activities when they are aware of the potential dangers.

    Summary

    Plaintiff Linda Roberts was injured at a ballpark when struck by a baseball bat wielded by a player in an on-deck circle. She sued the Boys and Girls Republic, alleging negligence. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, holding that Roberts had assumed the risk of injury because she was aware of batting equipment and players swinging bats in the vicinity. The court relied on the principle that participants in recreational activities assume the inherent risks associated with those activities, especially when they have observed the potential dangers. This case highlights the application of the assumption of risk doctrine in the context of sporting events.

    Facts

    Linda Roberts was present at a ballpark. While there, she was struck by a baseball bat swung by a player who was in an off-field, on-deck batting circle. Roberts had observed batting equipment and players swinging bats in the area where the incident occurred.

    Procedural History

    Roberts sued Boys and Girls Republic, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s order. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and subsequently affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a plaintiff, injured by a baseball bat at a ballpark after observing players swinging bats, assumed the risk of injury, thereby precluding recovery for negligence.

    Holding

    Yes, because the plaintiff observed batting equipment and players swinging bats in the area where the accident occurred, she assumed the risk of her injuries. The complaint was properly dismissed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals based its decision on the doctrine of assumption of risk, which states that participants in recreational activities assume the risks inherent in those activities. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had conceded to observing batting equipment and players swinging bats in the area where she was injured. This awareness of the potential danger was crucial to the court’s finding that she had assumed the risk. The court cited Morgan v State of New York, 90 NY2d 471 (1997), and Trevett v City of Little Falls, 6 NY3d 884 (2006) in support of its decision. The court concluded that because the plaintiff was aware of the risks and voluntarily exposed herself to them, the defendant was not liable for her injuries. The court’s decision reflects a policy consideration of encouraging participation in recreational activities by limiting liability for inherent risks that are known and appreciated by participants. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions published with the decision.

  • Haymon v. Pettit, 9 N.Y.3d 324 (2007): No Duty to Protect Non-Patrons Chasing Foul Balls Outside Stadium

    Haymon v. Pettit, 9 N.Y.3d 324 (2007)

    A baseball park operator generally owes no duty to warn or protect non-patron spectators who are injured while chasing foul balls outside the stadium, even if the operator offers an incentive for retrieving such balls.

    Summary

    A 14-year-old, L.H., was injured when struck by a drunk driver after chasing a foul ball into a public street near Falcon Park. The baseball association operating the park offered free tickets for returned foul balls. L.H.’s mother sued the association, arguing its promotion created a duty to protect or warn participants. The New York Court of Appeals held that the association owed no such duty. The inherent dangers of crossing a street, coupled with the association’s lack of control over the street and third parties, negated any duty of care.

    Facts

    L.H., a 14-year-old, regularly retrieved foul balls outside Falcon Park, a baseball stadium operated by the Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc. (Ball Club). The Ball Club offered free tickets for returning foul balls. L.H. was struck by a vehicle driven by Donald Pettit, who was intoxicated, after L.H. chased a foul ball into a public street adjacent to the stadium while wearing headphones and failing to look for traffic. The parking lot across the street was owned by the City of Auburn and used by baseball fans.

    Procedural History

    L.H.’s mother sued the Ball Club, Pettit, and the City of Auburn. The Supreme Court denied the Ball Club’s motion for summary judgment, finding it had a duty. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint against the Ball Club, holding that no legal duty existed. Two justices dissented. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a baseball park operator owes a duty to warn or protect non-patron spectators who are injured while chasing foul balls that are hit out of the stadium when the operator offers an incentive for retrieving those balls.

    Holding

    No, because an owner or occupier of land generally owes no duty to warn or protect others from a dangerous condition on adjacent property unless the owner created or contributed to such a condition and, here, the dangers of crossing the street exist independent of the Ball Club’s promotion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that landowners generally don’t owe a duty to protect others from dangers on adjacent property unless they created or contributed to the condition. Citing Galindo v Town of Clarkstown, 2 NY3d 633, 636 (2004), the court stated, “The reason for such a rule is obvious—a person who lacks ownership or control of property cannot fairly be held accountable for injuries resulting from a hazard on neighboring property.” Foreseeability alone doesn’t create a duty. The Court distinguished the case from situations where a landowner created a dangerous condition on adjacent property. It drew an analogy to Darby v Compagnie Natl. Air France, 96 NY2d 343 (2001), where a hotel wasn’t liable for a guest’s drowning at a public beach despite encouraging its use. Here, the Ball Club’s promotion, like the hotel’s services, didn’t create a duty to ensure safety in an area they didn’t control. The court observed: “The dangers of crossing the street—and individuals electing to cross it in pursuit of foul balls—exist independent of the Ball Club’s promotion.” Even if the promotion contributed to the risk, the court considered the “practical realities” that “foul balls can land on virtually any square foot of property surrounding a stadium, and imposition of a duty to warn or protect under such circumstances is neither fair nor practical”. Imposing a duty would lead to limitless liability, requiring the stadium to control the conduct of third persons outside its premises, which is unrealistic. The court stated: “[I]t is difficult to imagine what steps the stadium operator could have taken that would have sufficed to meet a duty.”

  • Akins v. Glens Falls City School District, 53 N.Y.2d 325 (1981): Extent of Baseball Field Owner’s Duty to Protect Spectators

    Akins v. Glens Falls City School District, 53 N.Y.2d 325 (1981)

    The owner of a baseball field fulfills its duty of reasonable care to spectators by providing screening for the area behind home plate that is sufficient to protect as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating during an ordinary game.

    Summary

    The plaintiff, while watching a high school baseball game from an unscreened area along the third base line, was struck by a foul ball and injured. She sued the school district, alleging negligence for failing to provide adequate screening. The New York Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the school district fulfilled its duty of care by providing adequate screening behind home plate, the area of greatest danger. The court emphasized that a baseball field owner is not an insurer of spectator safety but must exercise reasonable care, and that providing complete screening of the entire field is not required.

    Facts

    The plaintiff attended a high school baseball game at a field owned by the defendant school district. The field had a backstop 24 feet high and 50 feet wide behind home plate. Two three-foot chain link fences ran along the base lines from the backstop. The plaintiff chose to stand behind the three-foot fence along the third base line, approximately 60 feet from home plate. She was struck in the eye by a foul ball about ten minutes after arriving, suffering serious injury.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued the school district for negligence. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict finding the school district 65% at fault and the plaintiff 35% at fault. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint, holding that the school district had fulfilled its duty of care as a matter of law.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the owner of a baseball field is liable for injuries sustained by a spectator struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened section of the field, when the owner has provided protective screening for the area behind home plate.

    Holding

    No, because the proprietor of a baseball park need only provide screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest, and that screening must be sufficient to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court stated that a baseball field owner is not an insurer of spectator safety but must exercise “reasonable care under the circumstances.” It acknowledged that many spectators prefer unobstructed views and that owners have a legitimate interest in catering to these preferences. The court adopted the majority rule that an owner must screen the most dangerous section of the field (behind home plate) and provide sufficient screening for those reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats. The court emphasized the practical realities of the sport, stating, “many spectators attending such exhibitions desire to watch the contest taking place on the playing field without having their view obstructed or obscured by a fence or a protective net.” The court found that the school district provided adequate protection behind home plate, and thus could not be liable for failing to provide additional screening along the baselines. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where the adequacy of the screening behind home plate is in question. The court emphasized that it must make a threshold determination of whether the plaintiff has presented adequate evidence to support a favorable jury verdict, and found that the school district had fulfilled its duty of reasonable care as a matter of law. As stated in the opinion, “where a proprietor of a ball park furnishes screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest and that screening is of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game, the proprietor fulfills the duty of care imposed by law and, therefore, cannot be liable in negligence.”