Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation
45 Cal.App.5th 261 (2020)
Sections
Rule of Law:
Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, the operator of a sports venue has a duty to take reasonable measures to increase safety and minimize the risks of injury to spectators—such as installing protective netting—provided those measures do not alter the fundamental nature of the sport.
Facts:
- On August 17, 2013, 12-year-old Summer J. attended the United States Baseball Federation (US Baseball) national team trials at Blair Field.
- Summer was seated in the spectator bleachers, an area of the stadium that did not have a protective screen or netting.
- The stadium configuration included box seats closer to the field than recommended distances and included distractions such as Wi-Fi to encourage mobile device use and bright advertising.
- While watching the game, Summer was momentarily distracted from the field of play.
- A line drive foul ball flew into the stands and struck Summer in the face.
- As a result of the impact, Summer suffered serious injuries, including damage to her optic nerve.
Procedural Posture:
- Summer filed a complaint against US Baseball and other defendants in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County alleging negligence and premises liability.
- US Baseball filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, arguing the lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine.
- Summer moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to add details about the lack of netting and stadium distractions.
- The trial court sustained US Baseball's demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that the lack of netting did not increase inherent risks.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of US Baseball.
- Summer appealed 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 owe a duty of care to protect spectators from foul balls by installing protective netting in perceived zones of danger, or is such a claim barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Perluss
Yes, a stadium operator owes a duty to minimize risks to spectators where doing so does not fundamentally alter the sport. While the 'Baseball Rule' historically placed the burden on fans to assume the risk of foul balls, the legal standard requires operators to minimize inherent risks if feasible. The court found that the installation of protective netting along the first- and third-base lines would increase safety and minimize injury risks. Crucially, reviewing current trends in Major League Baseball, the court rejected the historical notion that expanded netting would make the game 'impossible to play.' Therefore, the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not bar a claim alleging that the operator failed to take reasonable safety measures that would not alter the nature of baseball.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of the 'Baseball Rule' in California tort law. By explicitly referencing Major League Baseball's voluntary expansion of netting as evidence that safety measures do not 'alter the nature of the sport,' the court narrowed the scope of primary assumption of risk for stadium operators. This ruling effectively mandates that venue operators assess available safety technologies and configurations to minimize spectator injuries, rather than relying solely on the tradition that fans assume all risks of entering a ballpark. It opens the door for negligence liability when protective measures are available but not implemented.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation (2020)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"