Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation

California Court of Appeal
45 Cal.App.5th 261 (2020)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, the operator of a sports venue has a duty to implement reasonable safety measures, such as protective netting, to minimize inherent risks to spectators if doing so does not fundamentally alter the nature of the sport.

Facts:

On August 17, 2014, 12-year-old Summer J. attended national team trials sponsored by the United States Baseball Federation at Blair Field.
Summer sat in the 'spectator bleachers' or grandstand area, which was not protected by a screen or netting.
Blair Field contained protective netting only in the area immediately behind home plate.
While Summer was momentarily distracted from the field of play, a line drive foul ball struck her in the face.
The impact caused serious physical injuries, including permanent damage to her optic nerve.

Procedural Posture:

Summer J. filed a complaint against the United States Baseball Federation and other defendants in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging negligence and premises liability.
The United States Baseball Federation demurred to the first amended complaint, arguing the lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
Summer J. moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to include allegations regarding the feasibility of extended netting and stadium distractions.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that lack of netting did not increase inherent risks.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of the United States Baseball Federation.
Summer J. filed a timely notice of appeal regarding the judgment and the post-judgment order denying her motion to tax costs.

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 baseball stadium operator have a legal duty to provide protective netting for field-level seating along the baselines to minimize the risk of injury from foul balls, such that the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not bar a negligence claim?

Opinions:

Majority - Perluss

Yes, a stadium operator has a duty to minimize inherent risks to spectators when feasible. The court reasoned that while the primary assumption of risk doctrine generally negates a duty to protect against inherent risks of a sport (like foul balls), an exception exists for venue operators. Operators must take reasonable steps to minimize risks if those steps do not alter the fundamental nature of the sport. Relying on Knight v. Jewett and Kahn, the court distinguished between co-participants and organizers. The court rejected the rigid application of the historical 'Baseball Rule,' noting that professional leagues are currently expanding netting, which demonstrates that such safety measures do not make the game impossible to play. Therefore, the failure to install netting along the baselines creates a triable issue of duty.

Analysis:

This decision represents a significant modernization of the 'Baseball Rule' in California tort law. Historically, stadium owners fulfilled their duty simply by providing some screened seats behind home plate. This court acknowledged that the nature of the game and spectator expectations have changed (e.g., higher ball velocity, more distractions like Wi-Fi). By holding that the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not automatically bar claims regarding foul balls, the court aligned legal duty with evolving safety standards in professional sports. It places a burden on operators to prove that a proposed safety measure would actually harm the sport's nature, rather than simply asserting the risk is inherent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation (2020)

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