No. The ballpark owner is not at fault. The court decided that the owner's only duty is to protect the most dangerous area—right behind the batter—and to provide enough screened seats for people who want them. Since the school did this, it wasn't negligent. Fans know that getting hit by a ball is a risk of the game, and if they choose an unprotected seat, they accept that risk.

Yes. The ballpark owner could be at fault, and a jury should decide. The judges who disagreed said the court shouldn't make a single rule for all cases. A jury should get to hear all the facts, like that it would have been cheap to add more fencing and that the school knew foul balls often landed in that area. They argued the court's decision unfairly blames the injured fan and takes power away from the jury.

No, the school district did enough to keep people safe. They put up a big safety net where balls are most likely to fly into the crowd - behind where the batter stands. They don't have to put nets everywhere because that would make it hard for people to see the game. The person who got hurt chose to stand in a less protected area, even though there were safer places to watch from. It wouldn't be fair to say the school district is responsible every time someone gets hit by a ball, no matter where they're standing, as long as the school district tried to make things reasonably safe.

Yes, the school district might be responsible. We shouldn't make a rule that says exactly what kind of safety net is enough. Every baseball field is different, and what's safe enough should be decided by a jury who can look at all the details of each situation. The jury should have been allowed to think about things like how much it would cost to make the field safer, how good the players were, and whether the school knew balls often flew over the short fence. By making this rule, we're not letting juries do their job of deciding what's fair in each case.

No. A proprietor of a ballpark fulfills the duty of care imposed by law where it furnishes screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is greatest, and that screening is of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating. The court adopted this two-prong standard, reasoning that an owner is not an insurer of safety and that many spectators prefer an unobstructed view. Because the school district provided a backstop for the most dangerous area of the field and the plaintiff presented no evidence that this protection was inadequate for those who wished to use it, the school district fulfilled its duty as a matter of law and cannot be held liable in negligence for an injury occurring in an unscreened area.

Yes. The question of what constitutes 'reasonable care under the circumstances' should almost always be a question of fact for the jury, not decided as a rigid rule of law by a court. The majority's holding creates an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all rule that usurps the jury's function to consider the specific facts of the case, such as the minimal cost of additional screening, the school's awareness of the danger, and the level of play. This rule effectively resurrects the doctrine of assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery, which contravenes the state's comparative negligence statute that was intended to abolish such absolute defenses.

No. The school district fulfilled its duty of care by providing adequate screening behind home plate, which is the area of greatest danger. Because the proprietor of a baseball field is not an insurer of spectator safety, it need only exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. This duty is fulfilled by screening the most dangerous section of the field - the area behind home plate - and providing sufficient screening for the number of spectators who may reasonably be expected to desire protected seats during an ordinary game. The school district met this standard by providing a 24-foot high, 50-foot wide backstop. Plaintiff presented no evidence that this backstop was inadequate for protecting the area behind home plate or that there were insufficient screened seats. Having provided adequate protection for the most dangerous area, the school district cannot be held liable for failing to provide additional screening along the baselines where the risk of being struck is considerably less. To hold otherwise would mean every spectator injured by a foul ball, regardless of location, would have an absolute right to a jury trial on claims of negligence, despite the owner's reasonable protective efforts.

Yes, because the majority's ruling improperly removes the determination of reasonable care from the jury. What constitutes reasonable care under the circumstances should ordinarily be a question for the jury, not a matter of judicial rule-making. The majority's attempt to prescribe precise dimensions for adequate screening is unwarranted and unwise, as it fails to account for the wide range of circumstances in individual cases and potential future developments in safety measures. The jury should have been allowed to consider factors such as the minimal cost of extending protective measures, the advanced skill level of high school players, and the school's awareness of frequent foul balls over the low fence. Additionally, the majority's ruling effectively resurrects the doctrines of assumption of risk and contributory negligence as total bars to recovery, contrary to the legislative intent behind the comparative negligence statute (CPLR 1411).

Akins v. Glens Falls City School District

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot