Baseball Rule
judges: Unanimous
opinions: Judicial notice taken of risk of foul ball injury at baseball games being common knowledge, even where plaintiff claims little interest in the sport. Trial court reversed.
date decided: 1981-06-18
name: Houston Sports Association
opinions: Whether baseball team had adequate protected seats available, and whether spectator injured by foul ball was adequately warned by team given distractions at game is a triable issue of fact for jury even if dangers of such injury are open and obvious
width: 300
decision by: Charles Loring (judge)
name: Grisim v.
decision by: Olszewski
name: Harting v.
decision by: Ross
date decided: 1987-03-05
decision by: Edward L. Chávez
name: Jones v.
keywords: Duty of care
video: Foul Balls in Japan: Real Sports Bonus Clip from HBO, showing foul ball protection in Japan's Tokyo Dome
opinions: Baseball team had duty to spectators to provide some seats screened from foul balls at games but not to screen all seats; spectator who chose to sit in unprotected seats when protected ones were available was contributorily negligent to his own injury by a foul ball and could not recover.
name: Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club
decision by: Massa
float: right
date decided: 1913-02-17
name: Coronel v. Chicago White Sox
decision by: O'Connor
decision by: Johnson
date decided: 2010-09-03
date decided: 1986-10-14
name: Schentzel v.
name: Coomer v. Kansas City Royals
court: Illinois Appellate Court
decision by: Zazzali
dissent: Fuschberg, Meyer
judges: Virginia Long
decision by: Dunn
court: New Mexico Supreme Court
name: Tapemark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament
name: Grimes v.
name: Dayton Dragons Professional Baseball Club
name: Yates v.
judges: Barry T. Albin
date decided: 2007-04-27
name: Jasper v.
date decided: 1999-12-08
date decided: 1997-07-01
judges: James Hardesty
decision by: Bennick
opinions: Construction of temporary benches at baseball park from which foul ball bounced and injured spectator increased risk of injury; park was thus in breach of its duty of reasonable care.
name: Maisonave v. Newark Bears
decision by: Jasen
court: Supreme Court of Missouri
name: Maytnier v. Rush
court: Missouri Court of Appeals
judges: Jaynee LaVecchia
opinions: Rule that baseball teams must provide some protected seating areas to be immune from liability over foul ball injuries to spectators is adequate under comparative negligence
court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
opinions: Limited-duty rule for baseball teams bars recovery for injury from ball thrown into stands as souvenir by player, since it was a routine aspect of game even if not necessary for play
court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
name: Loughran v. The Phillies
concurring: Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler
name: Akins v.
name: Crane v.
date decided: 2014-06-14
opinions: Baseball team owes spectators reasonable care in protecting them from foul balls; standard is met by screening seats behind home plate and making enough available to accommodate reasonable demand for protected seats
court: Supreme Court of Nevada
date decided: 1967-03-06
name: Brisson v.
appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court
name: Philadelphia National League Club
court: New York Court of Appeals
opinions: Limited-duty rule for baseball teams bars recovery by plaintiff injured by foul ball while sitting at table in unprotected stadium dining area with view of game.
court: California Courts of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2
number of judges: 4
number of judges: 5
citations: 17280.0
date decided: 1984-05-31
number of judges: 6
number of judges: 7
number of judges: 3
court: Texas Courts of Appeals
date decided: 2014-06-27
name: Rudnick v. Golden West Broadcasters