Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp.
483 Pa. 75, 394 A.2d 546 (1978)
Rule of Law:
The 'no-duty' rule, which limits a baseball stadium operator's liability for injuries to spectators from risks inherent to the game like batted balls, does not apply to injuries that occur in areas of the stadium where patrons are not expected to be exposed to such risks, such as an interior concourse.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1970, the inaugural day of Three Rivers Stadium, Evelyn M. Jones was a patron at the facility.
- The stadium contained an interior concourse behind the right field seating area, which featured large openings in the wall allowing pedestrians to look out onto the playing field.
- Jones was standing in this concourse and approached one of the openings to view the field, where some activity was occurring, but she was not aware that batting practice had begun.
- After looking at the field, Jones turned away from the opening to walk back toward a different concourse.
- Almost immediately after turning away from the field, she heard a shout of 'Watch!' and was struck in the eye by a batted ball as she turned back toward the field.
- Jones was a baseball fan familiar with the Pirates' former stadium, Forbes Field, where patrons in the concourses were not exposed to batted balls.
Procedural Posture:
- Evelyn M. Jones sued Pittsburgh Athletic Company, Inc. and Three Rivers Management Corporation in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones, awarding her $125,000.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The defendants (as appellants) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding Jones had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence.
- Jones (as appellant) was granted an allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the state's highest 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 the 'no-duty' rule, which protects baseball stadium operators from liability for injuries to spectators in the stands caused by batted balls, extend to a spectator injured by a batted ball while in an interior walkway of the stadium?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Roberts
No. The 'no-duty' rule applicable to patrons in the stands does not extend to a spectator injured in an interior walkway, because the risk of being struck by a batted ball in such a location is not an inherent part of the spectator sport of baseball. An operator of an amusement facility is liable for injuries to patrons when it fails to use reasonable care in the construction and management of the facility. The protection from liability for inherent risks—those 'common, frequent and expected' in the activity—does not cover risks created by the stadium's architectural design that are not integral to the game. The openings in the concourse wall were an architectural feature, not a necessary part of baseball, and created a foreseeable risk of harm. Unlike a spectator in the stands, a patron in an interior walkway is not expected to be on alert for batted balls, especially when the design of the concourse requires them to divert attention from the field to navigate safely. Therefore, ordinary premises liability principles apply, and the stadium operators owed Jones, a business invitee, a duty to protect her from foreseeable harm.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'no-duty' or 'Baseball Rule' in premises liability law. It establishes a critical distinction between risks inherent to a sport and risks created by the venue's physical design, limiting the assumption of risk defense for facility operators. By confining the 'no-duty' rule to seating areas and zones of expected danger, the court reinforces that operators have a standard duty of care in other areas like concourses and walkways. This precedent requires courts in future cases involving spectator injuries to analyze the specific location and nature of the risk, determining whether it stems from the game itself or from a separate condition of the premises.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp. (1978)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"