Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High School
895 N.W.2d 902 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land owes a duty of reasonable care to protect lawful visitors from risks on the premises, even if a danger is open and obvious. The visitor's knowledge of the risk does not negate the landowner's duty but is instead considered under the doctrine of comparative fault.
Facts:
- Spencer Ludman was a member of the Muscatine High School baseball team.
- On July 7, 2011, Ludman's team played a game at the baseball field on the grounds of Davenport Assumption High School (Assumption).
- The visitor's dugout at Assumption's field was located thirty feet from the first-base foul line.
- A protective fence ran in front of the majority of the dugout, but there was an unprotected five-foot-wide opening at each end to allow player access.
- During the fifth inning, Ludman stood in the unprotected opening farthest from home plate to watch the game.
- A batter hit a line-drive foul ball that entered the unprotected opening and struck Ludman in the head.
- Ludman suffered a fractured skull and other severe, long-term injuries as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- Spencer Ludman filed a premises liability action alleging negligence against Davenport Assumption High School in the Iowa district court.
- Assumption filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the contact-sports exception and assumption of risk, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sustained Ludman's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the design of other high school dugouts.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of all evidence, Assumption renewed its motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict for Ludman, finding Assumption negligent but assigning 30% comparative fault to Ludman.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of Ludman.
- Assumption, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 a high school, as a possessor of land, owe a duty of reasonable care to a visiting baseball player to protect them from injuries caused by foul balls entering an unprotected portion of the dugout?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiggins, Justice.
Yes, a high school owes a duty of reasonable care to protect a visiting player from such injuries. The court held that the case is governed by general premises liability principles, which impose a duty on land possessors to exercise reasonable care for the protection of lawful visitors. The court rejected Assumption's argument that the 'contact-sports exception' applied, reasoning that this exception only governs the duty between coparticipants in a sport, not the duty owed by a facility owner to a player. The court also declined to apply the doctrine of 'primary assumption of the risk' as a complete bar to recovery, aligning with the modern trend reflected in the Restatement (Third) of Torts. Under this view, the fact that a danger is open and obvious does not eliminate the landowner's duty; rather, the plaintiff's awareness of the risk is a factor to be considered in assessing comparative fault. While the court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude Assumption was negligent, it reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial due to two trial court errors: (1) improperly excluding Assumption's evidence of custom regarding the design of other dugouts in its athletic conference, and (2) refusing to instruct the jury on Ludman's potential failure to maintain a proper lookout.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns Iowa's premises liability law with the modern approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, particularly regarding open and obvious dangers. By rejecting primary assumption of risk as a categorical no-duty rule in this context, the court shifts the analysis from a threshold legal question for the judge to a fact-intensive jury question of comparative fault. This significantly impacts sports facility liability cases, making it more difficult for defendants to win on summary judgment and instead focusing litigation on whether both the facility owner and the injured participant acted with reasonable care. The ruling clarifies that while athletes accept risks inherent to a sport, they do not absolve facility owners of their fundamental duty to provide reasonably safe premises.
Unlock the full brief for Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High School