Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno
147 N.E. 86, 112 Ohio St. 175, 112 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a spectator at a baseball game assumes the risk of injuries from balls hit during the game, they do not assume the risk as a matter of law for injuries sustained from practice activities during an intermission, especially when such practice occurs in close proximity to the stands with multiple balls in play.
Facts:
- A female spectator (plaintiff) attended a "double header" baseball game hosted by the Cincinnati Baseball Club Co.
- She chose a seat in the grandstand that was not protected by a wire screen.
- During the intermission between the two games, players began practicing on the field.
- Multiple groups of players were engaged in practice simultaneously, meaning several balls were in play at once.
- One group of players was batting balls from the sidelines, approximately 15 to 25 feet from where the spectator was seated.
- The spectator was struck and injured by a ball batted by one of these players during the intermission practice.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the Cincinnati Baseball Club Co. in the trial court (court of common pleas).
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant baseball club.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court.
- The defendant baseball club, as plaintiff in error, then appealed the reversal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a spectator who is injured by a batted ball during an intermission practice session, while seated in an unscreened portion of the grandstand, contributorily negligent as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
No. A spectator injured during an intermission practice is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and the question should be submitted to a jury. The court distinguished this situation from prior cases where spectators assumed the risk of being struck by a ball during the course of a game. The reasoning for the general rule (assumption of risk) does not apply here for two main reasons. First, during a game, a spectator can generally watch the single ball in play to protect themselves, but during a practice with multiple groups and balls, this is impossible. Second, game play is generally directed away from the stands, whereas the practice that caused the injury occurred unusually close to the spectators, creating a danger not inherent to watching the game itself. As an invitee, the spectator was owed a duty of ordinary care by the management to keep the premises reasonably safe. Whether the management breached this duty by allowing dangerous practice so close to the stands, and whether the spectator was contributorily negligent in that specific context, are questions of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the long-standing "Baseball Rule," which generally holds that spectators assume the risk of injuries inherent to the game. By distinguishing between the game itself and intermission activities, the court narrowed the scope of the assumption of risk doctrine in this context. It reinforces that a premises owner's duty to an invitee is not suspended during breaks in the main event. This ruling obligates sports facility operators to exercise ordinary care regarding on-field activities during intermissions and makes it more difficult for them to obtain summary judgment in cases involving injuries from such non-game events.
Unlock the full brief for Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno