The Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, held last month that no duty of care exists to warn or to protect non-patron spectators who are injured while retrieving foul balls outside of a baseball stadium.
In Haymon v. Pettit, 2007 Slip Op 09071 (November 20, 2007), the plaintiff’s fourteen-year old son sustained personal injuries when he was struck by an automobile as he chased a foul ball into traffic outside of a stadium operated by the defendant. The defendant offered free tickets to people outside of the stadium who retrieved foul balls and returned them to the ticket window as part of a promotion.
The motion court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to prevent non-patron spectators from chasing foul balls into the nearby street because it created a foreseeable dangerous condition. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the action. Because two justices dissented and voted to affirm the motion court’s decision, reasoning that the defendant’s promotion played a role in creating the dangerous condition, the case was heard by the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals held that the owner or occupier of land generally owes no duty to warn or to protect others from a dangerous condition on adjacent property unless the owner or occupier created or contributed to such condition. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the limited duty of care, also known as “the baseball rule,” set forth in Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist. 53 NY2d 325 (1981).
It held that an owner/operator is simply required to provide protective screening for errant baseballs behind home plate. Citing Akins, the Court of Appeals noted that “the practical realities” of the sport of baseball include the inherent risk of errant baseballs ”of any sort” and that a baseball stadium owner/operator “is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators.” The Court of Appeals also determined that the promotion at issue did not cause or contribute to a dangerous condition.
