Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC
154 Idaho 167, 296 P.3d 373 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Baseball stadium owners and operators owe spectators a general duty of ordinary care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm. The defense of primary implied assumption of risk is not a valid defense in Idaho, as such issues are to be resolved under principles of comparative negligence.
Facts:
- Rountree, a season ticket holder for over 20 years, attended a Boise Hawks baseball game on August 13, 2008.
- The stadium had extensive mesh netting, but Rountree moved with his family from their protected seats to the 'Executive Club' dining area.
- The Executive Club was located at the end of the third baseline and, unlike most of the stadium, was not protected by vertical netting.
- While in the Executive Club, Rountree stopped paying attention to the game to engage in a conversation.
- Approximately ten minutes later, Rountree heard the crowd roar, turned back toward the field, and was struck by a foul ball, resulting in the loss of his eye.
- There were no warning signs at the entrance to the Executive Club.
- The back of Rountree's ticket contained a disclaimer assuming the risk of being injured by batted balls, which Rountree stated he had never read.
Procedural Posture:
- Rountree filed a negligence lawsuit against Boise Baseball in an Idaho district court (trial court).
- Boise Baseball moved for summary judgment, arguing for the adoption of the Baseball Rule and asserting the defense of primary implied assumption of risk.
- The district court denied Boise Baseball's motion for summary judgment on both grounds.
- The district court granted Boise Baseball's motion for a permissive appeal of its interlocutory order.
- The Idaho Supreme Court granted the permissive appeal to review the district court's order.
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 Idaho law adopt the 'Baseball Rule,' which limits a stadium owner's duty to spectators injured by foul balls, and is primary implied assumption of the risk a valid defense to bar recovery for such injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Jones
No. Idaho declines to adopt the Baseball Rule and holds that primary implied assumption of the risk is not a valid defense. A baseball stadium owner is subject to the general duty applicable to all business owners, which is to exercise ordinary care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm to others. The Court found no compelling public policy reason to create a special, limited duty for stadium owners, distinguishing it from the 'fireman's rule' and concluding that formulating such broad public policy is a task better suited for the Legislature. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Salinas v. Vierstra, clarifying that the abolition of assumption of risk as an absolute bar to recovery applies to both primary and secondary implied assumption of risk. The doctrine is fundamentally inconsistent with Idaho's comparative negligence statute, and issues related to a plaintiff's awareness of risk should be addressed by apportioning fault, not by barring the claim entirely.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Idaho's position of applying general tort principles to specialized contexts, rejecting the trend in many other jurisdictions of creating industry-specific limited-duty rules like the Baseball Rule. By doing so, the court places a higher burden of care on stadium operators in Idaho compared to their counterparts in states that have adopted the rule. The opinion also provides a definitive clarification of Idaho's tort law by explicitly abolishing primary implied assumption of risk, fully integrating the concept into the state's comparative negligence framework. This strengthens the role of the jury in apportioning fault and prevents defendants from using the 'inherent risk' of an activity as a complete shield from liability.
