By R. Douglas Manning, Ph.D. Candidate, University of New Mexico
On July 23, 2003, four-year-old Emilio Crespin and his family attended a minor league (AAA) baseball game between the Albuquerque Isotopes and the New Orleans Zephyrs at Isotopes Park. Prior to the game between the Dodgers’ and Astros’ affiliates, young Emilio was struck in the head by a homerun ball during batting practice. The child and his family were in the left field picnic area to attend a pre-game party hosted for a Little League team by the Isotopes. The picnic area is in fair territory but angled so that they did not face the field; the picnic table seating was perpendicular to the field of play. It was alleged that batting practice began without warning, public address announcement, or caution from stadium staff. The victim was hit on the top right portion of his head by the baseball as he began to eat his hotdog and drink, and injuries sustained from the impact of the baseball included a fractured skull and permanent disability due to brain damage (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010).
The state of New Mexico adheres to comparative negligence in which, “…the percentage of responsibility of the victim (plaintiff) and the percentage of responsibility of the person or agency (defendant) that contributed to the harm are balanced in a formula” (Clement, 2004, p. 25). Based on premises liability, baseball spectators are considered to be business invitees (Cotten & Wolohan, 2010, p. 43) and are owed a duty of care and the greatest level of safety and security by the owner/operator of the stadium. In order for negligence litigation to proceed, all four elements of negligence must be satisfied (Clement, 2004, p. 15). They include a duty or relationship; a breach or violation of this duty; an injury to the victim; and proximate cause, which states that the injury was a direct result of the breach of duty.
Projectiles, which may include batted and/or thrown balls, as well as bats leaving the field at baseball games is a foreseeable event. Foreseeability is defined as “…the capacity of the professional to anticipate an accident or incident” (Clement, 2004, p. 18), and a proactive response is warranted. In 1981, the Akins case established what came to be known as “The Baseball Rule.” This court ruling dictated that, a duty to spectators has been fulfilled if stadium proprietors provide a protective screen for as many individuals who may reasonably desire such safeguards (Akins v. Glen Falls City Sch. District, 1981); it was reaffirmed in the 2001 case, Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc. Prior to the Crespin case, New Mexico never addressed the baseball rule and had neither adopted a strict nor modified interpretation of the baseball rule; the Crespin litigation served as a case of first impression.
Represented by attorney Jacob G. Vigil, the plaintiffs alleged that such injuries during batting practice at Isotopes Park were foreseeable and that the baseball club owed a duty to protect its spectators from such trauma by screening the left-field picnic area and/or warning them that batting practice had commenced (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). Through premises liability law, these invitees were owed a duty of care to keep them safe, especially since a batting practice ball entering the picnic area was foreseeable and occurs regularly. The plaintiffs wished to reject the baseball rule as, “It’s unfair, prehistoric, outdated, and where else in our society do we accord some multi-billion dollar industry the ability to shirk off responsibility and accountability when they harm somebody?” (J. Vigil, personal communication, November 22, 2011)
Conversely, the defendants (Albuquerque Isotopes and City of Albuquerque), represented by Butt, Thornton, and Baehr, PC, argued that the duty owed by baseball teams/stadiums is limited in nature and unique due to the characteristics of the sport (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). Attendance at baseball games comes with inherent risks associated with the game itself and, as a spectator, you voluntarily assume those risks due to the fact that baseball is unpredictable (C. Ramos & S. Garrett, personal communication, November 22, 2011). Additionally, the defendants were hoping for a strict interpretation of the baseball rule; which dictates that a duty to spectators has been fulfilled if stadium proprietors provide a protective screen for as many individuals who may reasonably desire such safeguards (Akins v. Glen Falls City Sch. Dist., 1981). It is the defense’s belief that adopting the baseball rule in the state of New Mexico will not guarantee blanket immunity for baseball.
Following arguments at the District level, “The District Court applied the most limited duty, which is followed in a minority of jurisdictions, commonly referred to as the ‘Baseball Rule’” (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). Summary judgment was granted to all defendants, which included the Albuquerque Isotopes, City of Albuquerque, the Houston Astros, and Dave Matranga (the player who hit batting practice homerun). It was determined that the Albuquerque Isotopes (operators) and City of Albuquerque (owners) had satisfied a duty to their fans by providing a protective screened area behind home-plate for those fans who desired to sit behind it.
Although the Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for both the Astros and player Dave Matranga, it reversed the decision of the District Court. The Appellate Court, “…rejected [the] application of the baseball rule, holding instead that these Defendants owed a duty to exercise ordinary care” (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). Ordinary care was not implemented in this case and should have included protection for spectators in the left field picnic area; a protective screen and/or notification that batting practice had begun would have been appropriate. The Appellate opinion further stated that, “…we do not believe it is necessary to immunize the Isotopes and the City against all risks in order to preserve the game of baseball” (Crespin v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2009).
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear oral arguments in September, 2010. The majority opinion declared that owners, operators, and spectators owe an equal duty of care as it relates to safety; owners and operators must also not increase the risk to spectators. In its filing, the court stated that, “We adopt a limited duty [baseball] rule that applies to o/o [owners/operators] of a commercial baseball setting” (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). While, “Spectators must exercise ordinary care to protect themselves from the inherent risk of being hit by a projectile that leaves the field of play and the owner/occupant must exercise ordinary care not to increase that inherent risk…” (Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 2010). The case was remanded back to the District Court and has a trial date set for August 6, 2012.
As a case of first impression, there are, “…various iterations of the baseball rule and our court sort of went half-way with it” (M. Browde, personal communication, November 16, 2011). Modern baseball is no longer solely faced with the danger of projectiles (balls and bats) entering the stands during the course of a normal game. Mascots, marketing/promotional diversions, multimedia displays, entertainment zones, blimps, t-shirt guns, and areas where sightlines are blocked (concourses and concession stands) all present concerns for fan safety. It will be interesting to see how the jury approaches the need to balance the authentic fan experience with the need for the safety of the spectators.
References
Akins v. Glens Falls City Sch. Dist., 424 N.E. 2d 531, 534 (N.Y. 1981).
Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 635 NW 2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)
Clement, A. (2004). Law in sport and physical activity. Dania, FL: Sport and Law Press.
Cotten, D.J., & Wolohan, J.T. (2010). Law for recreation and sport managers (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Crespin v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., 216 P.3d 827 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009)
Edward C. v. Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, et al., (N.M. Sup. Ct., 2010)
