Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball
97 Daily Journal DAR 8521, 56 Cal. App. 4th 112, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, while spectators at sporting events assume inherent risks, event organizers owe a duty not to increase those inherent risks. Whether a particular activity, such as a mascot's antics, increases an inherent risk is a question of fact for trial if the activity is not an essential or integral part of the game.
Facts:
- John Lowe attended a professional minor league baseball game at "The Epicenter," home field of the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes.
- The Quakes' mascot, "Tremor" (a dinosaur character standing seven feet tall with a protruding tail), was performing antics in the stands just along the left field foul line, behind John Lowe.
- Tremor repeatedly touched John Lowe with its tail while performing its antics.
- Distracted by Tremor's actions, John Lowe turned away from the playing field to look at the mascot.
- As John Lowe turned his attention back to the playing field, he was immediately struck on the left side of his face by a foul ball.
- John Lowe sustained very serious facial injuries from the impact.
- Mascot antics were not an essential or integral part of playing a baseball game, as games could be and were played in the mascot's absence.
Procedural Posture:
- John Lowe filed a complaint in the trial court (Superior Court) against the California League of Professional Baseball and Valley Baseball Club, Inc. (the Quakes) for injuries sustained.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Lowe's claim was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues of material fact and ruling that Lowe's claim was barred by primary assumption of the risk, citing Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc.
- A written judgment of dismissal was signed and entered by the trial court, dismissing the case.
- John Lowe appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
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 primary assumption of the risk doctrine bar a spectator's negligence claim when the stadium's mascot distracts the spectator, causing them to be struck by a foul ball, thereby potentially increasing the inherent risks of attending a baseball game?
Opinions:
Majority - McDaniel, J.
No, the primary assumption of the risk doctrine does not necessarily bar a spectator's negligence claim when a mascot's distracting antics potentially increase the inherent risks of being struck by a foul ball. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the trial court improperly applied the primary assumption of the risk doctrine from Knight v. Jewett. While Knight establishes that defendants generally have no duty to protect participants/spectators from risks inherent in the sport, it also holds that defendants do have a duty not to increase those inherent risks. The court clarified that the key inquiry is whether the risk is "inevitable or unavoidable in the actual playing of the game." Foul balls hitting spectators are an inherent risk of baseball, but the mascot's antics are not an essential or integral part of playing a baseball game, as the game can be played without the mascot. Therefore, whether the mascot's actions in distracting John Lowe increased the inherent risk of being hit by a foul ball is a triable issue of fact, precluding summary judgment. The court distinguished Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. because in that case, there was no distraction by a mascot, and Clapman v. City of New York, where the alleged distraction by a vendor did not involve turning away from the field.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the primary assumption of the risk doctrine in spectator sports, emphasizing that while spectators assume inherent dangers, they do not assume risks that event organizers actively create or increase beyond those fundamental to the sport. It establishes that stadium operators have an affirmative duty to ensure their entertainment or promotional activities do not unduly heighten risks for attendees. Future cases will likely scrutinize whether non-essential elements of a sporting event contribute to an increased risk of injury, potentially leading to more negligence claims against venues for activities peripheral to the game itself, thereby encouraging stricter safety protocols for such entertainment.
