EDWARD C. v. City of Albuquerque
148 N.M. 646, 241 P.3d 1086, 2010 NMSC 043 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner or occupant of a commercial baseball stadium owes a limited duty to spectators: they must exercise ordinary care not to increase the inherent risk of being hit by a projectile leaving the field of play, while spectators are expected to exercise ordinary care to protect themselves from these inherent risks.
Facts:
- Edward C. and Janis C., along with their four-year-old son Emilio and other children, were attending a Little League party at Isotopes stadium.
- The family was seated in the stadium’s picnic area, located beyond the left field wall in fair ball territory.
- The picnic tables in this area were arranged so that seated individuals faced perpendicular to the field of play, not directly towards the action.
- While the family had just begun eating, pre-game batting practice commenced without any warning.
- During batting practice, New Orleans Zephyrs player Dave Matranga batted a ball out of the park into the picnic area.
- The batted baseball struck Emilio C. in the head, fracturing his skull.
- Isotopes stadium has a screen behind home plate, but no protective netting or screening between home plate and the seats beyond the left field wall where the picnic area was located.
- The City of Albuquerque owns the stadium, which is leased by the Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC (Isotopes).
Procedural Posture:
- Edward C. and Janis C., individually and as parents of Emilio C. and other minor children (Plaintiffs), sued the Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC d/b/a Albuquerque Isotopes (Isotopes), the City of Albuquerque (City), Houston McLane Co. d/b/a Houston Astros (Astros), and Dave Matranga (player) in district court.
- The district court applied a limited-duty 'baseball rule' and granted summary judgment in favor of all Defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Astros and Matranga, but reversed summary judgment for the City and the Isotopes, holding that these defendants owed a duty to exercise ordinary care.
- The City of Albuquerque and Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC, as Defendants-Petitioners, sought certiorari from the New Mexico Supreme Court.
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 an owner or occupant of a commercial baseball stadium owe a general duty of ordinary care to protect spectators from projectiles leaving the field of play, or is a limited-duty rule, such as the 'baseball rule,' more appropriate, and if so, what is its scope?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chávez
No, an owner or occupant of a commercial baseball stadium does not owe a general duty of ordinary care to protect spectators from all projectiles leaving the field of play; instead, a modified limited-duty rule is appropriate, requiring owners to exercise ordinary care not to increase the inherent risks of the sport. The Court recognized that while New Mexico generally applies a standard of reasonable care to landowners, the unique nature of commercial baseball, involving spectator participation and inherent risks, warrants a modified duty based on policy considerations. The Court rejected the most limited traditional 'baseball rule' (which only requires screening behind home plate) as too extreme and unyielding, particularly in light of modern stadium designs with multi-purpose areas and marketing strategies that create distractions. Instead, it adopted a 'symmetrical' duty: spectators must exercise ordinary care to protect themselves from the inherent risks of being hit by projectiles, and stadium owners must exercise ordinary care not to increase those inherent risks. This approach aligns with New Mexico’s comparative fault system and acknowledges that injuries resulting from circumstances, design, or conduct neither necessary nor inherent in the game are not precluded. Since the Defendants relied on the rejected traditional 'baseball rule' in their motion for summary judgment, they failed to establish a prima facie case under the newly defined limited duty, necessitating a remand for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This case significantly redefines premises liability for commercial sports venues in New Mexico by moving beyond both the strict 'baseball rule' and a general 'ordinary care' standard. The adopted 'symmetrical' duty balances spectator responsibility for inherent risks with owner responsibility for risks created beyond those inherent to the game, providing greater clarity for stadium operators. This nuanced approach allows for potential recovery for spectators injured in non-traditional viewing areas or under extraordinary circumstances, potentially influencing how other states with comparative fault systems approach sports venue liability. It reinforces that while some risks are inherent to sports, venues cannot negligently exacerbate those risks.
