By John Wolohan, Syracuse University
Perhaps the most basic legal duty sports facilities have is to protect the people coming into the facility (invitees), whether participating in some activity or just watching an event, by providing a safe environment. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 defines this duty by stating that:
“a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land, if but only if, he:
knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk to such invitees, and
should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.” [14]
It is important to note, however, that facility owners are not the insurers of an invitee’s safety. They are only liable for those dangers that are known or should have been discovered through reasonable inspections. As a result, facility operators need to constantly be inspecting their facilities and update security depending on events or circumstances.
Legal Duty of Sports Facilities
The following two cases are good illustrations of the duty facility owners owe their invitees. In the first case, Townsley et al., v. Cincinnati Gardens, Inc., 39 Ohio App. 2d 5 (1974), Harry Townsley, a minor, went to the Cincinnati Gardens with some friends to watch the Harlem Globetrotters. During the game, Townsley was assaulted in the restroom by a group of boys seeking money. At trial, the court held that with approximately 5,000 people at the event; the facility either knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the danger present and had more than five security guards working the event.[15]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, held that in order to be liable for Townsley injuries, the facility had to have some prior knowledge of the risk to the plaintiff or should reasonably have known of or anticipated the type of danger or acts of third persons which resulted in the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. [16] In looking at whether the facility had satisfied its duty to Townsley, the court noted that it needed to take into consideration the type of protection provided and the nature of the event, which would determine the probability of any trouble as well as the anticipated attendance. Since the event was a family event and there was no history of fights or disturbances, the court held that there was no evidence that the Cincinnati Gardens knew of, or could reasonably have anticipated, the danger to this plaintiff. As a result, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision and found in favor of the Cincinnati Gardens.[17]
In the second case, Patrick Pearson v. Philadelphia Eagles LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1016, the court was asked what was reasonable care when the facilities should have anticipated a danger. Patrick Pearson, a Dallas Cowboys fan, attended a game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Dallas Cowboys at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia wearing a Cowboys jersey. The Eagles fans, who are not especially well known for their good behavior, especially to fans of rival teams, jeered him throughout the first half of the game.[18] At halftime, Pearson went to the restroom. While there he was assaulted by a group of Eagles fans. As a result of the attack, Pearson was taken to the hospital and subsequently underwent two surgeries and had two rods and 10 pins placed in his right leg.
Pearson sued the Eagles for negligence in failing to provide a safe environment and for failing to properly ensure the safety of game attendees. In particular, Pearson argued that as an invitee the property owner had a duty to protect him from unreasonable risks. The Eagles argued that they did not breach their duty to Pearson because they had plenty of security on the day of the attack and had even deployed undercover operatives wearing Cowboy jerseys to identify disruptive fans who might present an unreasonable risk. The jury, however, agreed with Pearson and found that it was foreseeable that at a sporting event where fans are drinking and engaging in enthusiastic banter that tensions may run high and awarded Pearson $700,000 in damages.
On appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the facility operators argued that the trial court erred in concluding that foreseeable altercations could take place in the bathrooms.[19] In particular, the facility operators contend that Pearson “cannot meet his burden of proving negligence by claiming that he would not have been injured if a different program of security was provided, i.e., an extra security guard stationed inside the bathroom.” [20] In support of this argument, the facility operators noted that the “threshold question is whether a landlord has any duty to protect tenants from the foreseeable criminal acts of third persons, and if so, under what circumstances.” [21] Recognizing that there is a general rule against holding a person liable for the criminal conduct of another absent a preexisting duty, the Superior Court explained that “there is also an exception to that rule, i.e., where a party assumes a duty, whether gratuitously or for consideration, and so negligently performs that duty that another suffers damage.”[22]
In the current case, the court found that he duty to protect business invitees against third party conduct arises only if the owner has reason to anticipate such conduct. Thus, the appropriate question for the jury was whether the facility operators had notice of prior incidents in the stadium bathrooms. If no such notice existed, then Pearson had to demonstrate that facility otherwise lacked reasonable care in conducting their security program.[23] In finding for the Eagles, the court held that there was no evidence that the facility operators knew or had reason to know, from past experience, that violent assaults were likely to occur in the restrooms. [24] As a result, the court concluded that the security program the facility had in place was reasonable and vacated the judgment entered in favor of Pearson.
Conclusion
As the two cases above illustrate, property owners and facility operators are not liable for every injury that happens on their premises. As the courts noted, facility operators are only liable for protecting guests/business invitees from those dangers that are known or should have been discovered though reasonable inspections. Therefore, in order to protect themselves from negligent claims owners and operators need to not only protect visitors from dangers that are known or should have been discovered though reasonable inspections but they also need to protect visitors from dangers that they could have discovered if they had reasonably inspected the facility. As a result, facility operators need to constantly be inspecting their facilities and update security depending on events or circumstances.
[14] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343
[15] Townsley et al., v. Cincinnati Gardens, Inc., 39 Ohio App. 2d 5, 7 (1974).
[16] Id., at 7.
[17] Id., at 10.
[18] Patrick Pearson v. Philadelphia Eagles LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1016.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
