May 2013 - Parks & Recreation - 30

L AW R E V I E W

If the plaintiff is chargeable with
knowledge of the risk of injury from
a batted ball while he is in his unprotected seat, there would seem to be no
logical basis for considering that he
may reasonably be less aware of the
same danger in the aisle by which he
approaches his seat.
Under the circumstances of this particular case, the appeals court found no
evidence that " the Astros or an Astros
agent distracted her at the time that the
ball struck her. " On the contrary, in
complying with the usher's request to
store the stroller, the court noted Martinez was simply " walking up the aisle. "
In so doing, the court found the Astros
had not increased the inherent risks to
which spectators at baseball games are
regularly exposed, i.e., being struck by
a ball hit into unprotected stands. As a
result, the appeals court concluded the
Baseball Rule applied to the facts of
this case.
Accordingly, in the opinion of the
appeals court, the Astros had " complied with its limited duty to provide
an adequate number of screened
seats. " Moreover, the court found
the Astros had not created a distraction that had increased the open and
obvious risk of being struck by a
batted ball entering the stands. The
appeals, therefore, affirmed the summary judgment of the trial court in
favor of the defendant.
Minority Rule
In the case of Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC, 2013 Ida. LEXIS 55 (Idaho
2/22/2013), plaintiff Bud Rountree
lost an eye after being struck by a foul
ball while attending a Boise Hawks
game at Memorial Stadium in Garden
City. At the time of the incident, Rountree was eating in the Executive Club,
an area at the very end of the third base
line. The Club was one of the only ar-

Parks & Recreation

eas in the whole stadium not covered
by vertical netting. Rountree had been
talking to someone and had stopped
paying attention to the game when he
heard the roar of the crowd. Rountree
turned his head back to the game and
was struck by a foul ball.

the issue of foul-ball injuries have
come to the conclusion that owners of
baseball stadiums owe a limited duty
to patrons with respect to the risk of
being hit by a foul ball. " Moreover, the
district court recognized the following
" majority rule " that had emerged

Though many variations exist, the most common
formulation of the Baseball Rule is that stadium
owners and operators must provide screened
seats for as many spectators as may be reasonably
expected to call on them on any ordinary occasion.
The entrance to the Executive Club
had no warnings regarding the dangers of being struck by foul balls.
Rountree claims he never read the
back of his ticket prior to the injury,
which contained the following language: " THE HOLDER ASSUMES
ALL RISK AND DANGERS INCIDENTAL TO THE GAME OF
BASEBALL INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY (BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY) THE DANGER OF BEING INJURED BY THROWN OR
BATTED BALLS. "
Rountree brought suit against a
number of defendants, including
Boise Baseball, alleging their negligence caused the loss of his eye. In
response, Boise Baseball asked the
district (i.e., trial) court to adopt the
" Baseball Rule " which " limits the
duty of stadium operators to spectators hit by foul balls. " In so doing,
Boise Baseball claimed it had complied with the Baseball Rule and was,
therefore, entitled to summary judgment dismissing Rountree's lawsuit.
The district court acknowledged
that " all courts that have examined

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

from the case law on point:
[A]n owner of a baseball stadium
has a duty to screen the most dangerous part of the stadium and to provide
screened seats to as many spectators as
may reasonably be expected to request
them on an ordinary occasion.
While noting " the Baseball Rule's
benefits, " the district court concluded it was " unable to adopt the rule. "
In so doing, the district court found
such " policy decisions must be made
by the Legislature, not the courts. "
[T]he Legislature knows how to
define the scope of duties owed in the
case of particular high-risk businesses....[U]ntil the Legislature intervenes, baseball stadium owners will
be held to the standard applicable to
all business owners - that being a
general duty to exercise ordinary care
to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable
risks of harm to others.
As a result, the district court denied
Boise Baseball's motion for summary
judgment. Boise Baseball appealed.
On appeal, the issue before the
state supreme court was, therefore,
whether Idaho should " adopt the

May 2013 - Parks & Recreation

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