New York Law Review

Tag: spectator injury

  • Arbegast v. Board of Education of the South Colonie Central School District, 65 N.Y.2d 161 (1985): Spectator Injury and Assumption of Risk at Sporting Events

    Arbegast v. Board of Education of the South Colonie Central School District, 65 N.Y.2d 161 (1985)

    A spectator at a sporting event assumes the risks inherent in that sport, and a proprietor’s duty extends only to providing adequately protective screening for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire it, but this duty does not extend to those who voluntarily stand in unprotected areas.

    Summary

    A nine-year-old boy was injured by a hockey puck while standing in an unprotected area of a hockey rink. The plaintiff sued, alleging negligence in the rink’s design and lack of protective screening. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the rink owner breached a duty of care because the injured party voluntarily stood in an unprotected area. The court distinguished this case from cases involving baseball, emphasizing that the plaintiff offered no evidence of how the practical realities of baseball and hockey differ, so as to require protective screening around the entire rink. Moreover, the court reasoned that the injury was not a direct result of the bleacher’s placement, since the plaintiff was standing, not sitting, when injured.

    Facts

    The plaintiff’s nine-year-old son was struck in the face by a hockey puck while watching a hockey game at the defendant’s rink. The rink had three and a half foot high dasher boards, with three-foot plexiglass sections above the boards behind the goals, extending to the blue lines. The sides of the rink between the blue lines had no plexiglass. Movable bleachers were on one side, and the plaintiff’s son was standing in front of the bleachers, next to a section of dasher boards without plexiglass above it.

    Procedural History

    The lower court’s decision was appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the proprietor of a hockey rink has a duty to provide protective screening around the entire rink.
    2. Whether the defendant’s alleged negligence in the placement of bleachers was the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff’s son.

    Holding

    1. The court did not decide whether a duty exists to provide protective screening around the entire rink because the plaintiff failed to present evidence distinguishing the realities of hockey from baseball, as established in previous case law.
    2. No, because the plaintiff’s son was standing in an unprotected area, and not sitting in the bleachers.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished this case from Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., which concerned baseball, but noted that the plaintiff provided no evidence demonstrating different safety requirements between baseball and hockey. The court stated, “plaintiff offered no evidence of how the practical realities of the sports of baseball and hockey differ and thus has failed to establish that the duty we defined in Akins is inapplicable.”

    Even assuming the defendant breached its duty to provide sufficient protected seating, the court found that the defendant’s negligence wasn’t a direct cause of the injury. The court reasoned that because the plaintiff’s son was standing, not sitting, the bleachers’ placement was irrelevant. The court observed, “Having made the decision to stand in an unprotected area, plaintiff’s son may not now be heard to complain that defendant’s seating arrangements were negligent when he has not asserted that there was no room to stand along the protected section of the dasher boards or that he was prevented from doing so.” The court emphasized that spectators assume certain risks inherent in attending sporting events and the proprietor’s duty is limited to providing sufficient protected seating for those who desire it.

  • Clapman v. New York Yankees, 63 N.Y.2d 669 (1984): Baseball Spectator’s Limited Right to Protection from Foul Balls

    Clapman v. New York Yankees, 63 N.Y.2d 669 (1984)

    Owners of baseball stadiums have a duty to provide adequately screened seating in the most dangerous areas (behind home plate) and a sufficient number of seats to meet reasonable demand, but they are not insurers of spectator safety from foul balls.

    Summary

    David Clapman, injured by a foul ball at Yankee Stadium, sued the stadium owner, operator, architect, and vendor concessionaire, alleging negligence in failing to extend protective screening, providing insufficient screened seating, and allowing vendors to obstruct views. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ grant of summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the stadium had met its duty by providing adequate screening behind home plate and a sufficient number of seats. The court also found that the plaintiff’s claim of obstructed view was contradicted by his own testimony and that the stadium had no duty to prevent vendors from briefly interfering with views.

    Facts

    David Clapman was seated in the box seat area behind the Yankee dugout at Yankee Stadium during a baseball game. He was struck by a foul ball and sustained personal injuries. Clapman alleged his view was obstructed by vendors moving in the aisles at the time he was struck.

    Procedural History

    Clapman and his wife sued the stadium owner, its lessee and operator, its architect, and its vending concessionaire. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The lower courts granted the motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the respondents were negligent in not extending the protective screen behind home plate to the area where Clapman was seated?
    2. Whether the respondents were negligent in providing insufficient seating behind the existing screen?
    3. Whether the respondents were negligent in allowing Clapman’s view of the play to be obstructed by vendors who moved about the aisles during the game?

    Holding

    1. No, because the stadium owner has a duty to provide adequate screening in the most dangerous areas, and appellants failed to raise an issue of material fact that the stadium failed to do so.
    2. No, because the stadium owner has a duty to provide a sufficient number of seats behind the screen to accommodate those who may reasonably be expected to desire such seating, and appellants failed to raise an issue of material fact that the stadium failed to do so.
    3. No, because given the location of the vendors and Clapman’s seat, respondents had no duty to ensure that vendors moving about in the stadium did not interfere with Clapman’s view.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied on the principles established in Davidoff v. Metropolitan Baseball Club and Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist.. These cases articulate that stadium owners must provide adequate protection in areas where the danger of being hit by projectiles is greatest, specifically behind home plate. The court reasoned that the stadium had met this duty by providing a screen in that high-risk area and providing sufficient seating behind the screen for spectators who wished to be protected. The court also noted that Clapman’s own deposition testimony contradicted his claim that vendors obstructed his view of the ball. The court emphasized that stadium owners are not insurers of spectator safety. The court stated, “Appellants failed to raise any issue of material fact concerning a failure to erect a screen providing adequate protection in the area behind home plate, where the danger of being hit by foul balls is greatest, or to provide sufficient seats behind the screen to accommodate as many spectators as reasonably may be expected to desire such seating. In such circumstances there is no breach of duty by respondents.”

  • 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.”