{"id":1904,"date":"2016-01-11T10:47:59","date_gmt":"2016-01-11T10:47:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/?p=1904"},"modified":"2021-07-08T18:55:56","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T18:55:56","slug":"the-danger-zone-what-legal-responsibility-does-major-league-baseball-have-to-protect-fans-from-foul-balls-and-broken-bats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rimonlaw.com\/the-danger-zone-what-legal-responsibility-does-major-league-baseball-have-to-protect-fans-from-foul-balls-and-broken-bats\/","title":{"rendered":"The Danger Zone: What legal responsibility does Major League Baseball have to protect fans from foul balls and broken bats?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the past few years, there have been numerous injuries to baseball fans hit by foul balls and thrown or broken bats.\u00a0 For example, at Fenway Park on June 6, 2015, a broken bat from Oakland A\u2019s infielder Brett Lawrie flew into the stands and struck Tonya Carpenter in the head as she was seated along the third base line.\u00a0 Her injuries were initially described as \u201clife-threatening\u201d and the game was halted while she was attended to as fans and players looked on.<\/p>\n

On July 13, 2015, Oakland A\u2019s season ticket holder Gail Payne filed a class action suit against Major League Baseball and its Commissioner in the Northern District of California federal court.\u00a0 (Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (dba Major League Baseball) and Robert D. Manfred, Jr. et al, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-cv-03229-YGR.) Payne\u2019s suit seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief against MLB to address the dangers associated with spectators being hit and injured by foul balls and broken or thrown bats, and may test the limits of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as it applies to the risks posed to spectators at baseball games.<\/p>\n

On October 23, 2015, Payne amended her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs (one of whom was injured by a foul ball at a Dodgers game, and another who was injured at a Minor League Baseball game and has written a book on injuries to baseball spectators).\u00a0 The Amended Complaint also added each of the Major League Baseball teams as defendants.<\/p>\n

Payne claims to represent all persons nationwide who purchased Major League Baseball season tickets and whose seats are in the \u201cDanger Zone,\u201d which the complaint defines as \u201cany unnetted\/uncovered area between home plate and the foul plates located at the end of the right and left field lines.\u201d\u00a0 Although Payne herself has never been injured at a baseball game, the complaint details numerous spectator injuries at various ballparks throughout the country. \u00a0Plaintiffs claim that MLB has increased the inherent risks of attending a baseball game by failing to provide netting for all seats in the \u201cDanger Zones.\u201d\u00a0 Her suit asks the court to address the questions of what legal duty MLB owes to spectators; whether MLB has increased the inherent risks of injury to spectators by allegedly failing to provide adequate netting; and whether MLB has failed to disclose the risks of injury or misrepresented ballparks as \u201csafe and family friendly.\u201d\u00a0 Payne requests that the court order all existing Major and Minor League ballparks to be retrofitted with protective netting from foul pole to foul pole, and that MLB be ordered to conduct a study of spectator injuries.<\/p>\n

In response, MLB and the other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in late 2015.\u00a0 MLB argued that the suit should be dismissed on procedural and jurisdictional grounds; because Payne did not allege an \u201cimminent risk of injury\u201d to anyone given the slight risk of future injury; that baseball tickets already contain warnings of the risks associated with attending baseball games; and that Payne chose to purchase seats that were not protected by netting, although she could have purchased comparable seats behind the backstop netting for the same price.<\/p>\n

MLB also argued that the longstanding \u201cbaseball rule\u201d defeats plaintiffs\u2019 negligence claims.\u00a0 The \u201cbaseball rule\u201d has been in place for nearly 100 years and is one of the earliest pronouncements of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk \u2013 the concept that one assumes the risks inherent in one\u2019s activities.\u00a0 The California courts, along with courts across the country, have long recognized that being hit by a bat or ball are inherent risks of attending a baseball game.\u00a0 Many courts have held that, where screened seats are provided for those who want them, persons who choose to sit in unscreened seats assume the risk of being hit by errant bats and balls.\u00a0 MLB further argues that it has no duty to warn spectators of these risks because they are open and obvious, and in any event, baseball tickets currently do contain a warning of these dangers.<\/p>\n

In response, plaintiffs argue that the baseball rule is outdated because the game of baseball has been \u201camplified\u201d over the past century, with foul balls now flying into the stands with much greater force and speed.\u00a0 Plaintiffs claim that spectators are unaware of the dangers posed by flying balls and bats; that MLB\u2019s warnings actually contribute to this lack of awareness by suggesting that spectators can protect themselves by being alert to the dangers; and that the warnings printed on tickets were inconspicuous and unclear.\u00a0 Plaintiffs also argue that MLB has increased the inherent risks to spectators by providing distractions such as mascots, electronic displays, and the \u201cMLB At-Bat\u201d smartphone app, which is designed to be used during baseball games.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, on December 9, 2015, the MLB Commissioner\u2019s office issued a press release containing recommendations encouraging baseball clubs to provide netting in addition to fan warnings and education.\u00a0 The press release reads in part:<\/p>\n