May 2013 - Parks & Recreation - 28

L AW R E V I E W

Specifically, the court found the " limited-duty doctrine " under the Baseball Rule establishes " the outer limits
of liability and allows the stadium
owner to fulfill its duty of care as a
matter of law. "
[T]he Baseball Rule establishes a
fact-specific standard of care for injuries caused by errant balls at baseball
stadiums by accounting for the open
and obvious nature of the risk that
batted balls pose to fans.
As cited by the appeals court, the
Baseball Rule in Texas reflected the
" majority rule " that " continues to be
applied by courts across the country
in the last 12 years. " Moreover, the
court cited published court opinions
issued before 2000 that had adopted
the limited-duty Baseball Rule in the
following jurisdictions: California,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah and
Washington. Since 2000, the appeals
court found courts in the following
jurisdictions had adopted the Baseball
Rule: Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada,
New Mexico and Virginia.

to spectators, unless injury is caused
by the owner's willful and wanton
conduct " (unlike mere carelessness,
which would constitute ordinary
negligence, willful and wanton conduct requires outrageous behavior indicative of an utter disregard for the
physical well-being of others).
While noting that " [t]he limited-duty rule was first recognized almost 90 years ago in Edling v. Kansas
City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 168
S.W. 908 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914), the
appeals court acknowledged that
the Baseball Rule is " not without
its critics, " including the Idaho state
supreme court opinion described
below, Rountree v. Boise Baseball,
LLC, 2013 Ida. LEXIS 55 (Idaho
2/22/2013).
Under the Baseball Rule, the appeals
court further noted that courts in other
jurisdictions have specifically held that
" the stadium owner's duty includes
providing a net behind home plate " :
[The] sports venue owner or operator that provides screened seating
(1) sufficient for those spectators who

According to the court, this " majority rule " ensures
that " those spectators desiring protection from foul
balls will be accommodated and that seats in the
most dangerous area of the stadium will be safe. "
Similarly, the court found the Illinois legislature had adopted the
" Baseball Facility Liability Act "
(745 ILCS 38/1 et seq.) to effectively
" overrule two cases that had created
liability for stadium owners for injuries caused by batted balls. " In so doing, the purpose of this Illinois statute
was to " shift expense for such injuries

Parks & Recreation

| M AY 2 0 1 3 | W W W. N R PA . O R G

may reasonably anticipated to desire
protected seats on an ordinary occasion, and (2) in the most dangerous
section of the stands, has satisfied its
duty of care to those spectators...
[The] baseball rule prevents liability if there are a sufficient number of
protected seats behind home plate to
meet the ordinary demand for that

kind of seating. If that seating is
provided, the baseball stadium owner has fulfilled its duty and there can
be no liability for spectators who are
injured by a projectile from the field.
As characterized by the appeals
court, the Baseball Rule was consistent with " public policy considerations that strike a balance among
multiple interests and presumptions
about attendance at a baseball game. "
First, there is the interest of fans
who desire the intimate feeling from
sitting as close to the action as possible with the possibility of snagging
a ball. Second, there is the interest
of fans who want protection from
injury due to wayward balls. Third,
the risk of injury from a ball is considered an inherent risk of the game.
Fourth, most fans who attend the
games are aware that objects may
leave the playing field with the potential to cause injury...
While requiring that protected
seats be provided for those who want
them, the limited-duty rule leaves the
baseball stadium owner free, without fear of liability, to accommodate
the majority of fans who prefer unobstructed and uninsulated contact
with the game.
In the opinion of the appeals court,
" it is a matter of 'universal common
knowledge' that a flying baseball is
capable of inflicting painful, sometimes serious and even fatal, injury
and may fly in any direction and
strike any bystander not on the alert
to evade it. " Despite such risks, the
court found " [b]aseball patrons generally want to be involved with the
game in an intimate way and are even
hoping that they will come in contact
with some projectile from the field
(in the form of a souvenir baseball).
[S]pectators know about the risk
of being in the stands and, in fact,

May 2013 - Parks & Recreation

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