By Kendra K. McGuire[1] and Charles F. Gfeller[2].
Baseball is commonly referred to as “America’s Past Time,” and the thrill of catching a foul ball in the spectator stands is an experience closely related to it. But what happens when a spectator is seriously injured by a rogue foul ball? Who will be held liable for the spectator’s injures and damages? In some cases, the Baseball Rule applies.
In general, the Baseball Rule states that commercial sports facility operators (“operators”) owe a limited duty to protect spectators from being injured by objects used during the sport. Maisonave v. Newark Bears Professional Baseball Club, Inc., 185 N.J. 70 (2005). The Baseball Rule imposes a requirement of ordinary care to provide seats protected by screening and requires operators to screen any spectator area that is subject to a high risk of injury. See Olds v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club, 119 S.W.2d 1000 (Mo. Ct. App. 1938); Quinn v. Recreation Park Ass’n, 3 Cal. 3d 275 (1935); Hummel v. Columbus Baseball Club, 71 Ohio App. 321 (2nd Dist. Franklin County 1943); Williams v. Houston Baseball Ass’n, 154 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Civ. App. Galveston 1941).
Specifically, the Baseball Rule imposes two requirements upon operators: first, the operator must provide a sufficient number of protected seats for those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on any ordinary occasion; and second, the operator must provide protection for all spectators located in the most dangerous parts of the facility. Reed-Jennings v. Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., 351 P.3d 887 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015). When both requirements are met, an operator discharges its duty to provide spectators with screened seats. In turn, the operator will not be held liable for a spectator’s injuries caused by a projectile.
- How Many Screened Seats are Legally “Sufficient”?
Courts have been wary to come up with a specific number of screened seats needed to meet the first requirement of the Baseball Rule. However, there is a consensus among courts that the number of screened seats in a commercial sports facility must be, at least, sufficient for all those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on an ordinary occasion.
Specifically, a facility owner is not required to screen every seat, or to provide screened seats for all spectators who may seek one; rather, the facility owner must only provide enough screened seats for as many patrons as may reasonably be expected to call for them on ordinary occasions. Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, LLC, 221 N.C. App. 645 (2012); Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC, 124 Nev. 213 (2008); Sciarrotta v. Global Spectrum, 194 N.J. 345 (2008); Reed-Jennings v. Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., 188 Wash. App. 320 (2015).
In practice, it is recommended that facilities provide enough screened seats to accommodate an ordinary demand of spectators. Facility owners should audit the demand for screened seats at previous games and provide enough screened seats at every game to seat the average amount of spectators who wish to sit there.
If an injured spectator brings a claim against a facility operator for injuries sustained from a projectile, the injured spectator must prove that the operator has not satisfied its duty of care by providing sufficient seating. The spectator may be able to meet this burden by showing that the number of people who attended the game was greater than the number of “safe” seats, or that the “safe” seats were typically reserved in advance by season ticket holders, which left few, if any, “safe” seats for purchase by casual spectators. Zitter, Liability to Spectator at Baseball Game Who Is Hit by Ball or Injured as Result of Other Hazards of Game—Failure to Provide or Maintain Sufficient Screening, 82 A.L.R.6th 417 (2013); Lawson By and Through Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013 (Utah 1995). Facilities can combat this potential liability issue by taking care to ensure that enough screened seats are provided at every game.
- What Areas Qualify as the “Most Dangerous Parts of the Facility?”
The second prong of the Baseball Rule requires operators to screen the most dangerous parts of the facility, which has been interpreted by courts to mean areas that pose an unduly high risk of injury (i.e., directly behind home plate).
Like the first prong of the Baseball Rule, courts have also been careful not to prescribe precisely what, as a matter of law, are the required dimensions of a baseball field screen.
However, New York Courts and many others agree that the proprietor of a ballpark 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. Operators are not legally required to implement screening along the entire baseline, where courts have noted that the risk of being struck by a stray ball is considerably less. Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 329 (N.Y. 1981); Wade-Keszey v. Town of Niskayuna, 4 A.D.3d 732 (App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2004).
Operators should also be aware that while there is a duty to provide screened seats, some states have held that there is a duty to provide reasonably safe protection to patrons at and along the ways provided for their entering and exiting of the screened area. Olds v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club, 119 S.W.2d 1000 (Mo. Ct. App. 1938). Operators should note, however, that they are only required to protect spectators from foul balls within the confines of the stadium. Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC, 124 Nev. 213 (2008).
Generally, it is recommended for operators to install protective screening in the area behind the home plate. Operators would also be wise to determine which areas additional areas of seating are at a high risk for foul balls and install protective screening there as well. In terms of the height of the protective screening, facility operators should install screening high enough to catch the majority, if not all, foul balls.
- Injuries Sustained from Foul Balls: An Inherent Risk.
When a spectator buys a ticket to see a baseball game, they are accepting the inherent risks that come with being a spectator. Courts have been clear to emphasize that the risk of being struck by a ball during a baseball game is a risk that spectators are legally deemed to have accepted personal responsibility for, because that risk commonly inheres in the nature of the sport of baseball. Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d at 484, (N.Y. 1997).
For example, in one case involving the Baseball Rule, a court noted that a “spectator at a sporting event, no less than the participant, accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary, just as a fencer accepts the risk of a thrust by his antagonist or a spectator at a ball game the chance of contact with the ball The timorous may stay at home.” Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 329 (N.Y. 1981).
Dozens of courts have followed suit in their application of the Baseball Rule, which represents a conscious decision to favor the collective interests of all spectators by rejecting as a matter of law individual claims of injured spectators. Coomer v. Kansas City Royals, 437 S.W.3d 184, 196 (M.O. 2014). Despite being decided across the country, these cases reflect the shared principles that it is not possible for players to play baseball without occasionally sending balls into the stands, it is not possible for a facility to protect each and every spectator from associated risks without fundamentally altering the game or the spectators’ experience of watching it, and that ordinary negligence principles do not produce reliable acceptable results in these types of cases.
Legally, operators are held to have fulfilled their duty to safeguard spectators from the danger of being struck by thrown or batted balls by providing adequate screened seats for spectators who desire them. Mills for DeBlasio v. Durham Bulls Baseball Club, Inc., 845 S.E.2d 126 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020), review denied, 2021 WL 961683 (N.C. 2021). See Tarantino v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, 123 A.D.3d 1105, 2014 WL 7392284 (2d Dep’t 2014). In sum, if a facility operates in a jurisdiction in which the Baseball Rule applies, operators can, and should, take steps to avoid being held liable for a spectator’s injuries caused by a foul ball, errant puck, etc., by implementing adequate screening.
[1] Kendra K. McGuire is an Associate Attorney with Gfeller Laurie, LLP. She can be reached at (860) 760 – 8445 and kmcguire@gllawgroup.com.
[2] Charles F. Gfeller is a Partner at Gfeller Laurie, LLP. He can be reached at (860) 760 – 8410 and cgfeller@gllawgroup.com.
