3
O P I N I O N
Foul ball! With all eyes toward the World Series, let’s take a look at some interesting case law that you can use to determine who’s liable if you happen to get hit. I t’s October, and all eyes are on baseball’s World Series games. We love it when some lucky fan catches a foul ball, their smiling face on the big screen. But others aren’t so lucky. We’ve seen it this year already: fans hit with a broken bat, or a foul ball. Who is at fault? Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of case law on this topic.
Bill Quatman
case when a girl was struck by a foul ball at Shea Stadium. Her box seat was separated from the playing field only by a 3-foot fence. The court held that under New York law, when the owner of a ball park furnishes screening behind home plate, “the proprietor fulfills the duty of care imposed by law and, therefore, cannot be liable in negligence.” Even though her specific box seat was in an unscreened area, the court held that: “The rule suggested by plaintiff would require a baseball field proprietor to operate as an insurer of spectators unless there was a protective screen shielding every seat.” The court rejected this argument, with two judges dissenting. 3 In a 2005 Pennsylvania case, a fan was enjoying a Phillies game when, at the end of the seventh inning, the center fielder tossed a ball into the stands after catching it. The fan suffered a serious eye and head injury. The Court of Appeals ruled that the defendants owed no duty to protect the
In a 2005 New York case, a fan was three rows from the field at Shea Stadium when he was struck by a baseball that had been tossed to fans by the Mets pitcher after pre-game warm-ups. Both the pitcher and the Mets were sued for damages. “The defendants are not insurers of the safety of spectators who occupy unprotected areas of the stadium,” according to the court’s ruling for the team. “Since it is not unusual for a player to toss a ball into the stands, the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.” 1 In a 2002 New York case involving a child hit (again at Shea) by a baseball during batting practice, the Mets won again, with the court ruling that, “by furnishing sufficient protective screening behind home plate, where the danger of being struck by a baseball is the greatest, the defendant fulfilled its duty of care and cannot be held liable in negligence.” 2 The ruling was essentially the same in a 1984
See QUATMAN, page 4
THE ZWEIG LETTER OCTOBER 19, 2015, ISSUE 1124
Made with FlippingBook Annual report