Benjamin Feld, Larry Feld, And Judith Feld Vs. Luke Borkowski
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 102, 790 N. W. 2d 72 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in a contact sport, such as softball, are not liable for injuries caused by merely negligent conduct, but are subject to liability only for conduct that is intentional or reckless. Evidence that a participant's action was highly abnormal and created a risk outside the sport's ordinary activity can be sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on the question of recklessness.
Facts:
- Benjamin Feld and Luke Borkowski were experienced teammates on an intramural slow-pitch softball team.
- During a team practice on June 2, 2005, Borkowski was batting while Feld was playing first base, sixty feet away.
- Borkowski, a right-handed hitter, swung at a pitch and hit a high foul ball to the left of third base.
- A split second after making contact with the ball, the bat left Borkowski's hands.
- The bat flew in a horizontal 'helicopter motion' directly down the first baseline, striking Feld in the forehead.
- Feld suffered a severe injury to his left eye.
- Borkowski claimed the bat slipped from his sweaty hands, but Feld's expert witness, a university baseball coach, testified that the bat's trajectory could only occur if the batter deliberately released it in a very abnormal, contorted way.
Procedural Posture:
- Benjamin Feld and his parents filed a negligence lawsuit against Luke Borkowski in an Iowa district court (trial court).
- Borkowski filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that softball is a contact sport and that the Felds failed to produce evidence of reckless conduct.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Borkowski.
- The Felds, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
- The Felds sought, and the Iowa Supreme Court (the state's highest court) granted, further review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the contact-sports exception, which imposes a recklessness standard of care, apply to the sport of softball, and if so, does expert testimony that a batter released a bat in a highly unusual and unnatural manner create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the batter's conduct was reckless?
Opinions:
Majority - Cady, Justice
Yes. The contact-sports exception applies to softball, transforming the standard of care from negligence to recklessness, and the plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence of recklessness to survive summary judgment. Softball is a contact sport because it inherently involves risks of physical injury from contact with participants or equipment like bats and balls. The court must look at the nature of the sport as a whole, not specific actions or positions. A participant is only liable for reckless or intentional conduct that creates risks beyond those inherent in the game. Here, the expert testimony from Ed Serváis, who stated that the bat's flight was so unusual it must have resulted from a deliberate, abnormal release, creates a reasonable inference of recklessness. A jury could conclude that Borkowski, in a moment of frustration, released the bat in a highly unorthodox manner, which constitutes an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk, thus meeting the standard for recklessness.
Concurring - Wiggins, Justice
Yes, but for different reasons. This Justice concurs only in the result, arguing that the court should have used this opportunity to abandon the contact-sports exception altogether. He believes the court's failure to address the viability of the exception under the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which the parties did not argue, avoids the central legal issue and creates a 'terrible dilemma' for the trial court on remand. By not resolving the issue now, the court is inviting a future appeal on the same question, creating unnecessary expense for the parties and the judicial system. The justice states he 'would address the issue head on and give the contact-sports exception a proper burial.'
Concurring - Appel, Justice
Yes, but for different reasons. This Justice concurs in the result but argues that the contact-sports exception is based on flawed policy justifications and should be rejected. He contends that the ordinary negligence standard is flexible enough to accommodate the context of sports, and that fears of chilling vigorous competition or creating a 'flood of litigation' are unfounded. Alternatively, he argues that softball should not be classified as a contact sport. Finally, even if the exception were to apply, the defendant's conduct—a bizarre and unheard-of bat release—created a risk of harm well beyond what is inherent in softball and should therefore be judged under an ordinary negligence standard.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Iowa's adherence to the contact-sports exception, applying a recklessness standard to sports with inherent risks of physical contact. By classifying softball as a contact sport, the court broadens the doctrine's application and establishes that the classification depends on the game's overall nature, not the specific position a player occupies. The case is significant for clarifying the evidentiary threshold for recklessness, demonstrating that expert testimony about the abnormality of an action can create a triable issue of fact, even without direct evidence of the defendant's state of mind. The two concurring opinions reveal a deep judicial divide over the continued validity of the exception, signaling that the doctrine may be challenged or overturned in future Iowa cases, particularly in light of the Restatement (Third) of Torts.
Unlock the full brief for Benjamin Feld, Larry Feld, And Judith Feld Vs. Luke Borkowski