January 2013 - Parks & Recreation - 59

to catch a ﬂy ball, dived for the ball, fell
to the ground, and then slid or rolled,
and struck his shoulder on the " doughnut-shaped " concrete ring. These rings
were part of the water sprinkler system
in the park. Sprinkler heads were placed
in them for watering the grass. Those located in the inﬁeld area were level with
the surface of the ground. Those in the
outﬁeld protruded about one inch above
the ground. They were not covered or
protected in any way. At least six of these
rings are located in the outﬁeld area of
the ballpark in question.
Rich had played softball in this park
several times, including earlier in the
week of his injury; and although he
did not know their exact places, he
knew the rings were there. In fact, he
was standing on one shortly before his
injury. The one he fell on " had some
grass up around it, " but he could have
seen it if he had been watching for
it. Instead, he was watching the ball.
According to the court, " [t]he owner
or occupier of premises owes no duty
to his invitees either to eliminate or to
warn of dangerous conditions on the
premises which are as well known to
them as they are to him. " In the opinion
of the court, Rich's own testimony conclusively established that he knew the
concrete " doughnuts " were in the outﬁeld and knew their uncovered, unprotected condition. As a result, the court
found " [t]he danger they posed to him
as he ran across the ﬁeld while watching a ﬂy ball was as well known to him
as it was to the City. " The court, therefore, affirmed the summary judgment
in favor of the City.

follow a lob shot into the adjacent court
and sustained injuries when she collided with a trash bin containing protruding jagged wood. The trash bin was
located immediately adjacent to the
only gate in the fence surrounding the
two tennis courts.
Anderson had approached her playing area by going through this gate and
testiﬁed at trial that she had reviewed
the area for any hazards before commencing play. The accident occurred
approximately one hour and forty-ﬁve
minutes into the match. It was undisputed that the trash bin was in the open
and in plain view during the entire time
and at no point during the match was
Anderson's view of it obstructed.

shot during her tennis match. Moreover,
Anderson claimed that Dunwoody was
liable for negligence because Dunwoody
should have been aware that Anderson
would be " distracted by playing tennis "
and " could injure herself on the trash
bin. " The court rejected this argument.

LAW REVIEW

ASSUMP TION RISK FOR OBSERVABLE BALLFIELD DEFEC TS continued from page 23

Anderson had and took advantage of the opportunity to review
the area where the trash bin was
situated for any possible hazards
and that the trash bin was obvious
and in plain view throughout the
approximately one hour and fortyﬁve minutes of play before Anderson's accident. Thus, the only
reasonable explanation for Anderson's collision with the trash bin is

According to the court, " [t]he owner or occupier of
premises owes no duty to his invitees either to eliminate
or to warn of dangerous conditions on the premises
which are as well known to them as they are to him. "
In determining whether " the presence of the trash bin at the rear of the
tennis courts constituted actionable
negligence " by Dunwoody, the court
acknowledged that Anderson owed the
following legal duty to look out reasonably for her own safety:
[A]n invitee [i.e., one who the

that she failed to exercise ordinary
care for her own safety...
[I]t is uncontroverted that Anderson's review of the playing area for
any hazards occurred before her
tennis match began and before she
could have become " distracted " by
that game, that the trash bin was in

landowner has invited onto the

plain view at that time and that it

premises for a business or public

was not moved at any time prior to

purpose] must exercise ordinary

Anderson's accident.

care for his own safety, and must
by the same degree of care avoid
the effect of the owner's negligence
after it becomes apparent to him or
in the exercise of ordinary care he
should have learned of it. He must
make use of all his senses in a rea-

Trash Bin

sonable measure amounting to or-

In the case of Anderson v. Dunwoody
North Driving Club, Inc. 176 Ga. App.
210; 335 S.E.2d 451; 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2203 (September 12, 1985), plaintiff
Sandra Anderson was injured while
participating in a tennis tournament at
Dunwoody's facility. During the course
of her match, Anderson left her court to

dinary care in discovering and

Even if Anderson was " distracted
from seeing the trash bin by her preoccupation with her tennis game, " the
court held a distraction which is " selfinduced " would not " excuse a party
from the failure to exercise ordinary
care. " As a result, the appeals court afﬁrmed the judgment in favor of defendant Dunwoody.

avoiding those things that might
cause hurt to him.

In response, Anderson had argued
that that " she became aware of the trash
bin only moments before she collided
with it " because she had become " distracted " in her attempt to return a lob

James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. is an
attorney and associate professor in the
School of Recreation, Health, and Tourism
at George Mason University. Email
jkozlows@gmu.edu. Webpage with link to
Law Review articles archive (1982 to
present): http://mason.gmu.edu/~jkozlows.

WWW.NRPA.ORG | JANUARY 2013 |

Parks & Recreation

January 2013 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2013 - Parks & Recreation