Spectator Brings Suit Against Major League Baseball and the New York Mets – Claims He Was Owed a Duty of Care Against Injury From Shattered Bat
By Edwin A. Machuca
A New Jersey man has filed suit in a New York Court against Major League Baseball, the New York Mets, and two current MLB players, Ramon Castro and Luis Castillo (the former is no longer a Mets player and is currently a member of the Chicago White Sox), for numerous injuries he sustained during a 2007 baseball game between the Mets and the Atlanta Braves as a result of a shattered bat flying into the stands and striking the man across his face.
James G. Falzon, the Plaintiff, also brought the suit on behalf of his infant son and his wife, Carolyn Falzon. Falzon is represented by the law firm of Schlemmer & Maniatis, LLP. Falzon alleges the defendants breached their non-delegable duty of care to him and that the Mets are also vicariously liable for the negligent acts of Castro and Castillo. Castro was the owner of the bat that Castillo used which shattered upon contact with a pitched ball and injured Falzon.
Castillo used a bat made of maple during his fateful at-bat. Bats made of maple have grown increasingly popular among MLB players due to a perceived notion that maple bats produce more home runs than the more traditional bats made of ash. This notion was perpetuated by the fact that MLB’s career home run leader, Barry Bonds, began exclusively using maple bats in 2001, a year in which Bonds set the single season MLB HR record with an astounding 73 HR’s. Falzon’s lawyers argue that rather than increase the number of HR’s hit by the players, maple bats have instead resulted in a noticeable spike in the number of shattered bats. Upon impact with a pitched ball, many maple bats shatter and its pieces fly dangerously towards the players, coaches on the field, and in some cases the fans. Batted balls flying into the stands is an assumed risk at baseball games, and for that matter flying bats as well (e.g., in certain instances a player may swing and miss at a pitch and the bat goes flying out of his hands and hurtling into the stands). However, Falzon’s lawyers are arguing that maple bats posed another risk to the spectators in the stands because they are not sound enough to sustain the constant contact of bat-on-ball. A risk, Falzon’s lawyers claim that was known to MLB, the Mets and the leagues’ players.
In fact, MLB commissioned a study in 2005 by the Baseball Research Center, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, comparing maple bats to ash bats. Two significant findings resulting from the 2005 study are that: (1) there is no discernible advantage in hit distance or batted ball speeds and more importantly (2) the manner in which the bats shatter upon contact with a pitched baseball does considerably vary. Based on this study, researchers found that while ash bats tend to crack, maple bats have a tendency to splinter and come apart, which results in more jagged pieces of wood randomly flying into the stands. These sharp, jagged pieces of wood pose a substantial risk of injury for the players, coaches, umpires and spectators. A risk, Falzon’s lawyers claim, that should have been better guarded against by MLB and the Mets. Aside from the 2005 commissioned study, there is additional evidence which indicates that MLB was concerned about the increased number of broken maple bat incidents. In 2006, for instance, as a result of the findings from the 2005 study, MLB considered, among other changes, banning the use of maple bats altogether, and extending the safety netting area behind home plate to the end of the dugouts. Additionally, in 2007, MLB required all of their approved maple bat suppliers to increase their liability insurance from one million dollars to ten million dollars. Falzon’s lawyers rely on the foregoing evidence to drive home the point that MLB and the Mets acted negligently by not providing a safer environment for its spectators and by not regulating the use of maple bats more strictly in the face of a known danger and risk posed by the shattering maple bats.
Spectators of sporting events assume certain risks when in attendance at a particular event. Moreover, spectators are made aware of these risks both before and during the event (baseball games are no exception). Falzon is seeking to hold MLB, two individual players and the Mets responsible for the physical injuries he sustained and for the alleged emotional injuries sustained by his family. That said baseball fans risk injury in a manner similar to Falzon’s injuries, irrespective of the type of bat that may shatter upon impact with a pitched baseball. In that same vein, fans of golf may be injured by slicing golf balls, and Nascar fans may be injured by flying debris from vehicles crashing at high speeds against each other or against walls, however, Falzon’s lawyers hope to prove that despite the knowledge that the defendants had regarding the dangers posed by shattering maple bats, they did not act reasonably in ensuring the safety of Falzon or other spectators. Assuming this case goes to trial, it will be interesting to see where the Court draws the line between the assumption of risk borne by spectators and the duty owed to these spectators by professional sports leagues, its teams and the players. Falzon’s case is not the first of its kind and it certainly will not be the last, however, its outcome, if detrimental to the defendants, would certainly be a game-changer.
Edwin A. Machuca, Esq. is an in-house lawyer for CB Richard Ellis, Inc. in New York. Edwin advises internal clients on complex legal matters and also analyzes legal and regulatory issues affecting CBRE’s operations. He is also a former HS baseball player. Edwin can be reached at 212-984-6646 and at edwin.machuca@cbre.com.
