Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC
180 P.3d 1172 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the limited duty rule, a baseball stadium owner's duty to protect spectators from foul balls is satisfied by providing adequate screened seating for those who desire it and by screening the most dangerous areas of the stadium.
Facts:
- Kathleen and Michael Turner were season ticket holders for the Las Vegas 51s baseball team, owned by Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC.
- The 51s provided warnings about the danger of foul balls on their tickets, through public address announcements, and on signs at entry gates, all of which the Turners acknowledged being aware of.
- On May 4, 2002, the Turners left their assigned seats and went to the 'Beer Garden,' an upper-level concession area several hundred feet from the playing field.
- The Beer Garden was not enclosed by a protective screen, unlike some other concession areas in the stadium.
- While Mr. Turner stood at a railing to watch the game, Mrs. Turner sat at a table from which she could not see the field.
- A foul ball entered the Beer Garden and struck Mrs. Turner in the face, rendering her unconscious and causing significant injuries.
- Mrs. Turner stated she never saw the ball coming and had no opportunity to avoid it.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen and Michael Turner filed a complaint against Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC (the Las Vegas 51s) in Nevada district court, alleging negligence, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The 51s filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they did not breach any duty of care.
- The district court granted the 51s' motion for summary judgment, finding no breach of duty and that the risk was known and obvious.
- The Turners, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
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 owner have a duty to protect a spectator from being injured by a foul ball while she is in an unscreened concession area located far from the field?
Opinions:
Majority - Parraguirre, J.
No. The court adopts the limited duty rule, which defines the full extent of a stadium owner's duty regarding foul balls. This rule requires operators to: (1) provide a sufficient amount of protected seating for spectators who may reasonably desire it, and (2) provide protection for spectators in the most dangerous parts of the stadium, such as behind home plate. Once an operator satisfies these requirements, it has no remaining duty to protect spectators from the known and inherent risk of foul balls. In this case, the Beer Garden was not considered one of the most dangerous areas of the ballpark posing an 'unduly high risk of injury.' Therefore, the 51s satisfied their duty as a matter of law. The court also clarified that primary implied assumption of risk is a question of law for the court's initial duty analysis, not an affirmative defense for the jury, overruling prior precedent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Gibbons, C. J.
Yes. While agreeing with the adoption of the limited duty rule, the dissent argues that it should not apply to areas outside of the stands, such as concession areas. To apply the rule to the entire stadium would grant owners near-immunity for foreseeable injuries to patrons not actively engaged with the game. For areas like the Beer Garden, traditional principles of negligence should apply, meaning the stadium owner owes a general duty of reasonable care. Whether the 51s breached that duty by failing to screen the Beer Garden is a question of fact for a jury to decide, making summary judgment on the negligence and loss of consortium claims inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'limited duty rule' in Nevada, providing baseball stadium owners with a clear and specific standard of care regarding foul ball injuries. This standard limits liability and discourages litigation, shielding owners from a general duty of reasonable care for the entire facility with respect to this specific risk. The decision also significantly clarifies Nevada tort law by reinstating primary implied assumption of risk as a component of the court's legal duty analysis, taking the question of inherent risks away from the jury. This affects future negligence cases involving recreational activities with obvious, inherent dangers.
