A New York state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a trial court, thus dismissing the claim of a spectator who was hit by a foul ball in a game and subsequently sued.
In so ruling, the court reasoned that the defendants — Liscum, McCormack & VanVoorhis (LMV) and the Keystone Professional Baseball Club (d/b/a Hudson Valley Renegades) – satisfied their duty to the plaintiff by providing screening behind home plate.
Plaintiff Judith Rosenfeld was seated in a picnic area in a minor league baseball stadium, when she was struck by a foul ball. She then brought a personal injury action against architect that designed baseball stadium, stadium owner, and lessee. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, granted LMV’s motion for summary judgment as well as the motions to dismiss brought by the lessee and owner. The spectator appealed.
In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the appeals court found that the “the proprietor of a ball 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, as long as such 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.”
The court highlighted significant case law as well.
“’[T]he proprietor of a ball 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, as long as such 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’ ( Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 331, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531; see Haymon v. Pettit, 9 N.Y.3d 324, 328-330, 849 N.Y.S.2d 872, 880 N.E.2d 416; Davidoff v. Metropolitan Baseball Club, 61 N.Y.2d 996, 997-998, 475 N.Y.S.2d 367, 463 N.E.2d 1219). Since the plaintiff did not allege that she was struck in the area behind home plate or that the screening was not 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, she has failed to state a cause of action (see Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d at 331, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531; Ray v. Hudson Val. Stadium Corp., 306 A.D.2d 264, 760 N.Y.S.2d 232).”
The court added that “accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the motions of Keystone and the County which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). For the same reason, LMV established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and, in opposition, the plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, 20 A.D.3d 860, 799 N.Y.S.2d 316; Wade-Keszey v. Town of Niskayuna, 4 A.D.3d 732, 772 N.Y.S.2d 401; Suarez v. HBQVB Athletic Assn., 303 A.D.2d 396, 755 N.Y.S.2d 877). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of LMV’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.”
Rosenfeld v. Hudson Valley Stadium Corp., et al.; S. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York; 885 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 06527; 9/15/09
