By Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
One summer day, Timothy Roeckel went to see the Colorado Rockies play the New York Yankees at Coors Field in Denver. He had been invited to attend the game in a “private suite”. In the first inning, Roeckel was hit in the eye by a foul ball, “causing catastrophic and permanent injuries.” A lawsuit followed. Timothy Roeckel v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, LTD (District Court, Denver Colorado, State of Colorado, Case Number 2025CV31799 (5-19-2025)).
Background
Major League Baseball awarded Denver an expansion franchise in 1991. The team began playing in 1993. Doubtless legislators went to see the team play as the State Capitol Building is less than three miles away from Mile High Stadium, where the team played during its first two seasons. Tin 1993, the state passed the “Colorado Baseball Spectator Safety Act of 1993.” Colorado Revised Statutes, (“C.R. S.”), §13-21-120 et seq, (“Act”). The Act became effective on January 1, 1994. The Act provides a general assumption of risk solely for spectators that attend professional baseball games, subject to certain exceptions.Coors Field opened in 1995. It is owned by Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, but it is operated by the Rockies.
The Complaint
Roeckel was the guest of Mountain West Series of Lockton Companies, LCC. He did not purchase his ticket. The suite was “past the 100-level seating.” Roeckel was sitting down when he was struck. The ball “was obscured by architectural elements, including the ceiling of the luxury box and the overhang of the bleacher seats.” It was “not physically possible for Plaintiff to see the foul ball from the seat in question.”
Roeckel’s claims must circumvent the Act to be viable. The Complaint acknowledges that the Act provides “a general assumption of risk for spectators injured by foul balls.” Not mentioned in the Complaint is Section(4)(a): “Spectators of professional baseball games are presumed to have knowledge of and to assume the inherent risks of observing professional baseball games, insofar as those risks are obvious and necessary. These risks include, but are not limited to, injuries which result from being struck by a baseball or a baseball bat.” Section 4 (b) declares that It “shall be a complete bar to suit and shall serve as a complete defense to a suit against an owner by a spectator for injuries resulting from the assumed risks”.
The Act is subject to exceptions, provided by subsection (5)(a). Roeckel paraphrased it, turning it into bullet points. This subsection does not prevent liability of an owner who: “(a) Fails to make a reasonable and prudent effort to design, alter, and maintain the premises of the stadium in reasonably safe condition relative to the nature of the game of baseball; (b) Intentionally injures a spectator; or (c) Fails to post and maintain the warning signs required pursuant to subsection (6) of this section.” The case will turn on whether or not Roeckel can qualify for one of the statutory exceptions.
Roeckel’s Attempts to Qualify For the Exceptions
Fifteen numbered paragraphs in sixteen sentences is that attempt. Paragraphs 22-26 relate to the statute. Roeckel “alleges on information and belief” that the Rockies had been “specifically warned by engineers retained” either by MLB, its insurers or the Rockies about inadequate netting and increased risk yet failed to act. The team “was also aware that the Stadium had a reputation for baseballs traveling further, faster, and higher than in other stadiums.” It knew that the “Stadium was designed, altered or maintained in a manner that failed to take reasonably prudent steps to ensure the safety of invitees.” Therefore, “it was in the unique position of knowing of these hidden dangers.” Finally, the team’s “failure to design, alter, and maintain the Stadium in a reasonably safe condition directly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries.”
Paragraphs 27-30 cite examples of the team’s poor performance beginning in 2018. This, apparently, means that spectators, “particularly those in luxury suites, are less engaged in the action on the field.” Moreover, losing “has fostered a stadium culture in which socializing, dining, and business networking have become the primary focus for many attendees.”
This “cultural shift”, enumerated in Paragraphs 31-35, was “encouraged by Defendants’ own marketing and design choices” such as “installing a party deck where a view of the game for most spectators is virtually impossible.” The suites were designed to “accommodate business parties, meetings, conferences, networking and activities intended to take place” during games.
Paragraph 36 is a summing up that precedes the two causes of action, asserting that it “was foreseeable and preventable that spectators” would be injured. The Rockies consequently “failed to exercise reasonable care”.
First Cause of Action: Premises Liability
This is a seven-sentence statutory claim under C.R.S. §13-21-115(1) and C.R.S. §13-21-115(4)(c). It imposes liability on a landlord under certain situations. The Complaint incorporates its prior statement of facts that was designed to fit those circumstances. Allegedly, the team’s knowledge of the conditions and failure to act, means that it cannot rely on “unsigned, non-negotiable, private agreements purporting to release negligence claims against it.” This would include the general release on the ticket back used by Roeckel but not purchased by him.
Second Cause of Action: “Negligence/Negligence Per Se”
This cause of action incorporates everything previously stated. In five sentences it asserts that the failure to comply with the Act make the Rockies liable for all of Roeckel’s “past and future medical expenses, emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages, and physical and emotional impairment and disfigurement.” It demands a jury trial, seeking damages for the above, plus interest, costs, and any other available relief.
Commentary
Mr. Roeckel appears to have been seriously injured, and one must hope that he makes a complete recovery. However, if the Act applies, the Rockies win. Roeckel’s counsel tried to side-step it. For example, the Complaint states that the Rockies had been warned by engineers that there was inadequate netting. Perhaps, but the issue of “adequate netting” is a litigation gopher hole. Whenever there is an injury in a section not protected by netting, next to a section protected by netting, a plaintiff will make this argument. Eventually, to satisfy plaintiffs, the entire field would have to be covered in netting. Never again would Chicago Cubs’ fans toss back a home run ball hit by an opposing player.
The Complaint mentions fans with “limited vision” of the field, but that is not uncommon in baseball stadiums. Roeckel complains about the presence of televisions in the box but is there a luxury box in the country that does not have televisions, or a “ceiling”? If so, could it possibly be called a “luxury” box?
In an attempt to avoid application of the Act, the Complaint adds material of dubious legal relevance. Four numbered paragraphs recite the Rockies on-field record, and two of those numbered paragraphs relate to the 2025 season. The team’s won-loss record is not mentioned in the in the Act. Left out is that day, July 16, 2023, the Rockies were playing the Yankees and had split the prior two games. That day there was an announced crowd of over 47,000 , so there was interest in the game.
The next four numbered paragraphs opine that as a result of the team’s performance, “those in luxury suites are less engaged with the action on the field.” Team performance “has fostered a stadium culture in which socializing, dining and business networking have become the primary focus for many attendees.” This “cultural shift has been encouraged” by the Rockies and includes creating a rooftop “party section.” This is hardly unique to Coors Field, and whether fans in other areas of the stadium can or cannot see the field is irrelevant. Roeckel states that suites “were designed for business parties, meetings, conferences, networking and activities to take place” during the games. Exactly, just as in every luxury suite in the country. Much of this has nothing to do with the Act. If the stadium was poorly designed regarding foul ball injuries, surely there are a number of similar lawsuits in the twenty-eight years prior to this injury.
To invoke the Act, a stadium owner/operator must post warning signs, (in “conspicuous places” at the entrances and outside the stadium (CV-13-120 (6(a)). The signs must state, in bold: WARNING” and, in capitalized letters, instruct spectators that they assume the risk of injury, and “MAY NOT RECOVER FROM AN OWNER OF A BASEBALL TEAM OR AN OWNER OF A STADIUM” for injuries “FROM INHERENT DANGERS AND RISKS OF OBSERVING PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL OR BASEBALL BAT.” (C. R. S.§13-120 (6)(b)).
The Act concludes: “Insofar as any provision of law or statute is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, this section shall control. (C. R. S. §13-120 (b)(7)). It seems likely that the signs were present, or that absence would be in the Complaint. If the signs were posted, whatever one may feel is right in this circumstance, the Legislature intended to preclude recovery from foul ball injuries.
No matter how this case concludes, fans will continue to be struck by flying baseballs, hockey pucks and other sports’ material no matter what any lawyer says, does, or alleges. That is the reason for the primary assumption of risk doctrine, whether imposed by common law or statute. Team and stadium owners and operators should post necessary signs and keep their liability policies current.
