Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.
Opinion issued June 24, 2014 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The risk of injury from a mascot's promotional activity, such as tossing hotdogs into the stands, is not an inherent risk of attending a professional baseball game. The determination of what constitutes an 'inherent risk' for the purposes of the implied primary assumption of the risk doctrine is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- John Coomer, a frequent spectator at Kansas City Royals games, attended a game on September 8, 2009.
- During a break between innings, the Royals' mascot, Sluggerrr, began his regular 'Hotdog Launch' promotional activity from the roof of the visitor's dugout.
- Coomer was seated approximately 15 to 20 feet from Sluggerrr.
- After using an air gun for distant fans, Sluggerrr began tossing hotdogs by hand to those seated nearby.
- Coomer saw Sluggerrr appear to prepare for a behind-the-back throw but then turned to look at the scoreboard.
- A moment later, Coomer was struck in the face by a forceful object, which he claimed was the hotdog thrown by Sluggerrr.
- Approximately eight days later, Coomer was diagnosed with a detached retina and subsequently developed a traumatic cataract in the same eye.
Procedural Posture:
- John Coomer sued the Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation in a Missouri trial court for negligence and battery.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Royals, dismissing the battery claim.
- The negligence claim proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court overruled Coomer's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of assumption of the risk, ruling it was a question for the jury.
- Over Coomer's objection, the court submitted Instruction No. 11, which asked the jury to decide whether being struck by a hotdog was an inherent risk of attending a Royals game.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Royals, assessing 100% of the fault to Coomer.
- The trial court entered judgment for the Royals and denied Coomer's post-trial motions for a new trial.
- Coomer, as appellant, appealed the judgment, and the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer 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:
Is the risk of being injured by a mascot's hotdog toss an inherent risk of attending a professional baseball game that a spectator assumes, thus barring a negligence claim against the team?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Paul C. Wilson
No. The risk of being injured by a mascot's hotdog toss is not an inherent risk of watching a professional baseball game. The doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk, which bars recovery for injuries from risks integral to an activity, does not apply here. The court reasoned that inherent risks, like those covered by the 'Baseball Rule' (e.g., being hit by a foul ball or broken bat), are those that team owners cannot eliminate without fundamentally altering the sport itself or the spectator's experience. In contrast, the Hotdog Launch is an ancillary promotional activity, not an essential part of baseball, and the team can control, modify, or eliminate this activity without any impact on the game. Furthermore, the court held that whether a risk is 'inherent' is a question of law for the court to decide to ensure legal consistency, not a question of fact for the jury. Therefore, the trial court erred by instructing the jury to make this legal determination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and limits the scope of the implied primary assumption of the risk doctrine in the context of modern sports entertainment. It establishes a clear distinction between risks that are integral to a sport and those created by ancillary promotional activities. By affirming that the 'inherent risk' determination is a question of law for the court, the ruling promotes predictability and prevents inconsistent jury verdicts on the fundamental issue of a defendant's duty of care. This precedent will likely influence how courts analyze liability for injuries arising from other non-essential entertainment activities at sporting events, potentially increasing the legal exposure of teams for risks created outside the core game itself.
Unlock the full brief for Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.