Court of Appeal Does Away with ‘Baseball Rule’ in Foul Ball Injury Lawsuits
In American tort law, the Baseball Rule holds that a baseball team or, at amateur levels, its sponsoring organization, cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by a spectator struck by a foul ball batted into the stands. The ‘Baseball Rule’ has been steady law in most states throughout the country for nearly 100 years.
California was no different, and the ‘Baseball Rule’ has been binding precedent here since at least 1935. That was, until the Court of Appeal did away with it last month in the case of Mayes v. La Sierra University.
Monica Mayes’s attended her son’s college baseball game in April 2018. Her son was pitching for Loyola Marymount University as the team played La Sierra University in Riverside. The game was played at La Sierra’s home field, and Mayes sat on a folding chair on the grassy area above the third base line. La Sierra’s field did not have protective netting covering the area where Mayes was sitting; only the area behind home plate had protective netting. A foul ball rocketed into the stands and struck Mayes in the face. She suffered broken facial bones, eye damage, and brain damage.
Mayes sued La Sierra University for her injuries. She argued that the school was negligent by not installing protective netting where she was sitting. She also claimed La Sierra was negligent for failing to warn spectators that the only area of the field where spectators were protected by netting was behind home plate. In the trial court, La Sierra moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mayes assumed the risk of suffering a foul ball injury under California’s ‘baseball rule.’ The trial court agreed, noting that the case presented an example of a “textbook primary assumption of the risk case.”
It seemed like Mayes had “struck out” with her case. Fortunately for her, the Court of Appeal took a second look, and in January, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court noted that the ‘baseball rule’ is no longer consistent with California’s primary assumption of the risk doctrine. This doctrine, which is frequently applied to injuries suffered during sporting events, was first enunciated by the California Supreme Court in Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992). That case, and the many that followed, held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine is a rule of limited duty that holds owners and operators of sports venues responsible for (1) not increasing the risks of injury inherent in the activity, and (2) taking reasonable steps to increase safety and minimize the inherent risks of injury, if such steps can be taken without altering the nature of the activity.
Here, the trial court concluded that La Sierra had met its duty because it did not increase the risks of injury to Mayes. The Court of Appeal emphasized that both prongs must be applied to the facts of every primary assumption of the risk case. The judgment in favor of La Sierra University was reversed, and now the parties must explore whether La Sierra University could have taken reasonable steps to protect spectators like Monica Mayes without altering the nature of the baseball games being played at the school.
This case resulted in a win for Mayes. It follows a similar 2020 ruling in the case of Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation. There, a minor was injured by a foul ball at Blair Field on the campus of California State University Long Beach. The Court provided a lengthy analysis how professional baseball games are full of distractions for fans. WiFi is now provided in all stadiums, encouraging the use of mobile devices. Music is blaring, and the jumbotron flashes entertaining images at a near-constant pace. Fans cannot be expected to be alert at all times to foul balls careening into the stands at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.
The Summer J Court also pointed out that all 30 MLB teams have extended protective netting down the third base line, past the dugout. Thirty-six years ago, the Court of Appeal in Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers (185 Cal.App.3d 176) warned that requiring teams to extend the netting could seriously alter the viewing experience and thus, the institution of baseball itself. As time has passed, these negative predictions never materialized, and all Major League ballparks have invested in protective netting as an important safety upgrade for all fans.
Monica Mayes will now get to present her case. Whether or not La Sierra University could have taken reasonable steps to protect her without altering the nature of the baseball playing experience is a factual question which will need to be answered. It’s a question that courts are now allowing more plaintiffs to ask when they suffer foul ball and other injuries at sporting venues in California. It comes at an important time. According to Bloomberg, over 1,700 fans are injured every season by foul balls or splintering bats at Major League Baseball games.
California’s two-step primary assumption of the risk doctrine now requires courts to take a serious look at the facts of each case, instead of relying on nearly 100-year-old precedent to categorically bar spectator’s injury lawsuits. It looks like the ‘baseball rule’ has indeed soared into foul territory.
[Author’s Note: A longer version of this article appeared in the February 4th edition of the Daily Journal. Special thanks to Attorney Joseph Di Monda, who represents Ms. Hayes, for sharing his insights and helpful information about the case].
