Baseball Rule

rdf:langString Baseball Rule

rdf:langString Turner

rdf:langString Edling

rdf:langString Akins v.

rdf:langString American League Baseball Club

rdf:langString Brisson v.

rdf:langString California League of Professional Baseball

rdf:langString Chicago National League Ball Club

rdf:langString Chicago National League Baseball Club

rdf:langString Coomer v. Kansas City Royals

rdf:langString Coronel v. Chicago White Sox

rdf:langString Crane v.

rdf:langString Dayton Dragons Professional Baseball Club

rdf:langString Edward v. City of Albuquerque

rdf:langString Friedman v.

rdf:langString Glens Falls City School District

rdf:langString Grimes v.

rdf:langString Grisim v.

rdf:langString Harting v.

rdf:langString Houston Sports Association

rdf:langString Jasper v.

rdf:langString Jones v.

rdf:langString Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co.

rdf:langString Loughran v. The Phillies

rdf:langString Lowe v.

rdf:langString Maisonave v. Newark Bears

rdf:langString Maytnier v. Rush

rdf:langString Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Association

rdf:langString Philadelphia National League Club

rdf:langString Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club

rdf:langString Rudnick v. Golden West Broadcasters

rdf:langString Schentzel v.

rdf:langString South Shore Baseball LLC v. DeJesus

rdf:langString Tapemark Charity Pro-Am Golf Tournament

rdf:langString Three Rivers Management Corporation

rdf:langString Yates v.

rdf:langString v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co.

rdf:langString v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment LLC

rdf:langString California Court of Appeals, 4th District, Division 3

rdf:langString Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Dist., 3rd Div.

rdf:langString Illinois Appellate Court

rdf:langString Illinois Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 1st Div.

rdf:langString Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City Division

rdf:langString California Courts of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2

rdf:langString right

rdf:langString no

rdf:langString Unanimous

rdf:langString Bennick, Hostetler, Becker, McCullen

rdf:langString Bryant, Burke, Lyons,

rdf:langString Burdick, Eismann, J. Jones, W. Jones and Horton

rdf:langString Cahill, Cerda, McBride

rdf:langString Donovan, Fain, Grady

rdf:langString Dunn, Sam Bass and Cohen

rdf:langString Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Manderino, Larsen

rdf:langString McDaniel, Richli , Ward

rdf:langString Musmanno, Bender, Olszewski

rdf:langString O'Connor, Campbell and Manning

rdf:langString Parker, Huspeni, Randall

rdf:langString Scariano, Hartman, DiVito

rdf:langString Cooke, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Jasen, Fuschberg, Meyer

rdf:langString Rhodes, Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther

rdf:langString

rdf:langString torts

rdf:langString Foul Balls in Japan: Real Sports Bonus Clip from HBO, showing foul ball protection in Japan's Tokyo Dome

rdf:langString 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, under most circumstances, as long as the team has offered some protected seating in the areas where foul balls are most likely to cause injuries. This is considered within the standard of reasonable care that teams owe to spectators, although in recent decades it has more often been characterized as a limited- or no-duty rule, and applied to ice hockey and golf as well. It is largely a matter of case law in state courts, although four states have codified it. The rule arose from a pair of 1910s decisions by the Missouri Court of Appeals, both considering suits filed by spectators at home games of the minor league Kansas City Blues. In the first, considered to be the case that established the rule, the court upheld a trial verdict against the plaintiff, holding that his decision to sit outside the netting the team had installed behind home plate constituted contributory negligence and assumption of risk on his part. Conversely, in the second, decided a year later, the court upheld a verdict for a plaintiff who had been struck in the eye by a foul ball that passed through a hole in the netting between him and home plate. Other state courts accepted those cases as precedent and used them to decide similar cases. By the 1930s it was interpreted as requiring teams to erect protective screening over the stands behind home plate, a practice that had already become common in the late 19th century due to injuries from foul balls, which rose after an 1884 rule change allowed overhand pitching. Courts have seen it as balancing the team's duty of care toward spectators with the spectators' interest in having an unobstructed view of the game available and perhaps being able to take home a recovered foul ball as a souvenir. It has been held to apply in some other situations besides foul balls—when a player deliberately threw the ball into the stands as a souvenir, for instance—but not in others, such as errant pitches from a relief pitcher warming up in the bullpen, situations where multiple balls are in play (such as (formerly) batting practice), where struck spectators are not in the seating areas of the venue or where they may have been distracted by the team's mascot. In the wake of some serious injuries caused by foul balls in Major League Baseball (MLB) parks in the 2010s, including the first foul-ball spectator death at an MLB game in almost 50 years, there have been calls for the rule to be re-examined or abolished altogether, as more spectators are struck by a foul ball than players in the game are hit by a pitch. While MLB has required all of its teams to extend their protective screens to cover the area to the far end of the dugout on either side of the field, critics note that it is no longer possible for spectators to choose to sit under those screens given that all seats in the venue are reserved for those who buy them, many for the entire season. Further, they say, balls are hit harder and spectators, who on average now sit closer to the field than they did in 1913, have more distractions. Two states' supreme courts have declined to adopt the rule, which has been criticized as a relic of the era before the adoption of comparative negligence; a widely read William and Mary Law Review article further argues that the Baseball Rule fails the law and economics standards of optimally allocated tort liability.

rdf:langString Cook County Circuit Court

rdf:langString Jackson County Circuit Court

rdf:langString Pa. Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County

rdf:langString Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

rdf:langString St. Louis Circuit Court

rdf:langString Fuschberg, Meyer

rdf:langString Gibbons, Cherry, Douglas

rdf:langString Rivera-Soto, LaVecchia

rdf:langString Wallace

rdf:langString Cohen

rdf:langString Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler

rdf:langString Massa

rdf:langString Johnson

rdf:langString Dunn

rdf:langString J. Jones

rdf:langString Roberts

rdf:langString Ross

rdf:langString O'Connor

rdf:langString Lyons

rdf:langString Cahill

rdf:langString Donovan

rdf:langString Olszewski

rdf:langString J. Johnson

rdf:langString McDaniel

rdf:langString Jasen

rdf:langString Scariano

rdf:langString Bennick

rdf:langString Huspeni

rdf:langString Paraguirre

rdf:langString Zazzali

rdf:langString Cooke

rdf:langString Bender

rdf:langString Comparative negligence does not create a duty for baseball teams to warn spectators of possibility of injuries from foul balls

rdf:langString Distraction by mascot's antics at baseball game was inherent risk of game that barred recovery by plaintiff for injuries from foul ball

rdf:langString 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.

rdf:langString 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.

rdf:langString Adoption of rule limiting duty of baseball teams to spectators injured by foul balls is properly left to the legislature

rdf:langString Trial court upheld.

rdf:langString While baseball rule limiting teams' liability in foul ball injuries to spectators remains intact under comparative negligence, whether defendant provided adequate protected seating to meet rule's conditions is a triable issue of fact

rdf:langString Baseball team was negligent in not properly maintaining screen that kept foul balls from entering section of stands; spectator injured when foul passed through a hole in the screen was not contributorily negligent for not being able to avoid ball's path.

rdf:langString 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

rdf:langString Baseball team mascot's physical contact with spectator injured by foul ball increased inherent risk of such injury; summary judgement for team was thus improperly granted

rdf:langString Limited-duty rule for baseball teams regarding injuries to spectators from foul balls adequately balances their interests

rdf:langString Triable issue of fact existed as to whether defendant golf course had provided adequately safe seating in case brought by plaintiff injured by errant ball who sat elsewhere when seating provided was too crowded.

rdf:langString Baseball Facility Liability Act limiting teams' liability for injuries to spectators from foul balls was constitutional since it recognizes unique nature of hazards of viewing baseball

rdf:langString 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.

rdf:langString 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

rdf:langString Limited-duty rule on baseball teams' liability for spectators' foul ball injuries applies only when spectators are injured in seating areas

rdf:langString Mascot antics are not intrinsic part of baseball as game; limited-duty "baseball rule" therefore does not bar claim by spectator injured by errantly tossed hot dog

rdf:langString Injury from errantly thrown baseball is sufficiently different from one caused by foul ball as for sufficiency of protection against risk to be a triable question of fact; usual immunity from liability for baseball teams does not apply.

rdf:langString 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

rdf:langString Rule limiting liability of baseball teams for foul ball injuries applies only when spectators are injured while in seating areas; plaintiff injured while walking on stadium concourse was not incurring ordinary risks of watching game

rdf:langString 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.

rdf:langString Waiver language printed on rear of baseball ticket is insufficient for contractual assumption of risk defense against negligence claim over spectator's foul ball injury

rdf:langString No valid public policy reason exists for adopting limited-duty "baseball rule" in cases of spectators injured by foul balls

rdf:langString 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