By Carla Varriale, Esq.
A New York Court has rejected an injured spectator’s argument that his negligence lawsuit proceed because he was allegedly struck by shards of a maple bat and because both the professional baseball league and team were aware that maple bats were more likely to break apart than ash bats. The lawsuit, which took aim at the alleged increased hazards presented to spectators by maple bats (versus traditional ash bats) and the team’s and league’s alleged notice of the alleged enhanced danger, was recently dismissed as the result of the defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss.
In Falzon v. Major League Baseball Enterprises, Sterling Mets, L.P., Ramon Castro and Luis Castillo, James G. Falzon claimed that he was sitting in a box seat at Shea Stadium along the third base line. As he watched a baseball soar into the stands during the seventh inning, the barrel of a broken bat struck him in the face, causing serious personal injuries. Falzon sued the bat’s manufacturer in a separate lawsuit. Falzon accused the manufacturer of producing an “inherently dangerous” maple bat. Falzon contended that maple bats shatter at a greater rate and with greater intensity than ash bats and that this created a heightened danger for unwary spectators.
In contrast, Falzon’s lawsuit against MLB and the Mets posited that they failed to keep spectators “reasonably safe from hazards they had actual knowledge of, including the increased danger posed by shattering maple bats.” He relied, in part, on a purported MLB-commissioned studies of the enhanced dangers presented by maple bats because of the way those bats purportedly shatter. Falzon further argued that the players, Ramon Castro and Luis Castillo, were also negligent because they were not careful enough in inspecting and maintaining the offending bat.
Although some states utilize a “reasonable care” standard or have enacted baseball-specific liability statutes, New York is a “limited duty of care” state. The limited duty of care is a unique legal duty that calibrates some spectator’s desire to be “up close” to the action of a baseball game and the desire of other spectators to avoid the obvious risk of injury from objects that may leave the playing field. The limited duty of care was crafted in order to protect owners and operators of baseball stadiums from liability for spectator injuries caused by errant baseballs, bats and even promotional items that may enter the stands during a baseball game. The duty of care is satisfied when an owner or operator proves that the requisite protected area was provided behind home plate (as it was in the Falzon case, although Falzon and his family conceded that they were not sitting in the protected area and that they did they request seats in that area). Applying New York’s limited duty of care to the facts of the Falzon case, the Court determined that the requisite protected area was provided and that Falzon’s pleadings failed to state a cause of action.
In an effort to avoid the monolithic case law regarding the limited duty of care and his assumption of an obvious risk of injury, Falzon advanced several novel arguments. He argued that that the alleged enhanced danger presented by shattering maple bats was not an ordinary risk that he assumed. Falzon also contended that the protected area should not be limited to the area behind home plate, as that standard is outmoded given the current state of play and the trajectory of bats and baseballs. He further argued that because of the way that maple bats shatter, a spectator does not have adequate time to react and therefore faces an enhanced risk of injury. He noted, for example, that he was “distracted” because he was watching the game, and not on the lookout for the sort of projectiles created by the shattered maple bat.
The Court was not persuaded by these arguments and dismissed Falzon’s negligence action in its entirety. The Court declined to extend the limited duty of care or to require the owners and operators of a baseball stadium to protect additional areas of a ballpark with protective screening. The Court noted that to hold otherwise would essentially render the owners and operators insurers of an injured (or inattentive) spectator’s safety—-a standard the Court expressly declined to adopt.
The Court noted that the issue was not whether maple bats are somehow more likely to break than ash bats because the risk of injury to spectators who occupy unprotected areas is the same. Regardless of the alleged shattering style of the bat, the Court observed that the risk of injury to spectators such as Falzon was the same. Although Falzon also argued that had he been warned of the enhanced dangers presented by shattering maple bats, he would not have sat behind the protected area, the Court held this was a meritless argument. The Court noted the evidence offered in support of the motion that there were announcements provided at the stadium and specific language on the back of the ticket to the baseball game that warned spectators about the possibility of bats and bat fragments (maple or otherwise) entering the stands. Although the danger of being struck by a bat or a bat fragment is an obvious, inherent danger associated with watching a baseball game from an unprotected area, the Court found that Falzon was further apprised of the danger and assumed the risk of injury by the announcements and the ticket language.
Through his attorneys, Falzon has stated that he will appeal the Court’s decision. His lawsuit against the bat manufacturer is proceeding.
Carla Varriale is a partner at Havkins, Rosenfeld, Ritzert and Varriale, LLP (“HRRV”) in New York. She can be reached at carla.varriale@hrrvlaw.com. Ms. Varriale, along with Jarett L. Warner and Hilary Levine of HRRV represented the defendants in the Falzon lawsuit. James Han, a graduate student at Columbia University’s Sports Management Program, assisted in the preparation of this article.
