Lexplug logoLexplug

Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.

California Court of Appeal
2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12237, 104 Cal. App. 4th 703, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 529 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, defendants owe a duty to participants in a sport not to increase the risks inherent in that sport; if a manufacturer designs a product that significantly increases the risk of injury beyond what is inherent to the activity, the doctrine does not bar recovery.


Facts:

  • Andrew Sanchez, a college pitcher for CSUN, was pitching in a game against USC on April 2, 1999.
  • The batter, Dominic Correa, used an 'Air Attack 2' aluminum bat designed and manufactured by Hillerich & Bradsby (H&B).
  • The 'Air Attack 2' bat featured a pressurized air bladder design intended to substantially increase the speed at which the ball left the bat.
  • Correa hit a line drive that struck Sanchez in the head, causing serious brain injuries.
  • Prior to the incident, the bat's designer had warned H&B executives that the bat substantially increased the risk of injury to pitchers, but was told not to discuss safety publicly.
  • The NCAA and Pac-10 were aware of the dangerous nature of high-performance aluminum bats and had decided to implement new rules to decrease ball speed, but delayed implementation until after the 1999 season.
  • Sanchez had signed a disclaimer form acknowledging the risks of baseball, including brain damage, prior to the season.
  • An expert kinesiologist estimated the ball was traveling between 101 and 107.8 mph, reducing Sanchez's reaction time below the minimum accepted safety standard.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sanchez filed a lawsuit against H&B (manufacturer), USC, NCAA, and Pac-10 in state superior court for products liability and negligence.
  • Each defendant moved separately for summary judgment based on primary assumption of risk and lack of causation.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment for H&B, USC, and Pac-10, ruling Sanchez could not prove the bat caused the specific injury.
  • The trial court treated the NCAA's motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case against the NCAA.
  • Sanchez appealed the judgments to the California Court of Appeal.

Locked

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 doctrine of primary assumption of risk bar a pitcher's negligence and products liability claims where evidence suggests the aluminum bat used was designed to significantly increase the ball's exit velocity beyond the inherent risks of baseball?


Opinions:

Majority - Hastings, J.

No. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that while being hit by a ball is an inherent risk in baseball, defendants have a duty not to increase that risk beyond what is inherent in the sport. The court reasoned that under Knight v. Jewett, primary assumption of risk applies only when a defendant owes no duty to protect the plaintiff from a particular risk. However, there is a duty not to increase the risk of harm. The court found that Sanchez presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact that the 'Air Attack 2' bat was designed to generate ball speeds that substantially increased the risk to pitchers. Furthermore, the court rejected the trial court's finding on causation, holding that expert testimony based on scientific principles and video analysis was sufficient to establish that the increased speed of the bat likely caused the injury by reducing the pitcher's reaction time below acceptable limits.



Analysis:

This case is significant because it clarifies the boundaries of the 'primary assumption of risk' doctrine in the context of sports equipment design. It establishes that while athletes assume the inherent risks of a game, manufacturers and governing bodies cannot hide behind this doctrine if they introduce equipment that fundamentally alters the nature of the risk (e.g., by making the game dangerously fast). It aligns with Branco v. Kearny Moto Park, applying the concept that designing a sport element (like a bike jump or a bat) to be unnecessarily dangerous moves the case from 'primary assumption of risk' (a complete bar to recovery) to 'secondary assumption of risk' (comparative fault), which is a question for the jury. This prevents summary judgment in cases where equipment innovation compromises safety standards.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"