It’s Time to Watch for Baseballs

It’s Time to Watch for Baseballs Can spectators sue after getting hit by a ball? Judge Gerald A. Williams North Valley Justice Court I t’s March. School will soon be out for Spring Break. Spring Training and college baseball is underway. Arizona State University’s baseball team will play 17 games in March, including one against the University of Arizona. Grand Canyon University’s baseball team will play 20 games in March, including a scrimmage against the Arizona Diamondbacks.

So what happens if you go to a baseball game and get hit by a baseball? Can you sue? Probably not successfully. Th e legal concept involved is called assumption of risk.

Like many of our legal concepts, assumption of risk is based on common law from England. As such, a complete analysis of this area would begin with a discussion of a King’s Bench case from 1799 that involved a person driving a carriage on the wrong side of the road.

If we fast forward to modern America, we will discover that our courts don’t like to award damages to people who voluntarily do something dangerous. In some situations, having knowledge of a risk disqualifi es you from being a plaintiff . Perhaps one example would be a sober passenger who willingly gets into a car operated by an obviously drunken driver. So, has this concept really been extended so that it applies to sports spectators? Yes.

While it is in theory possible to get injured while watching any sport, only baseball and hockey frequently send small hard objects at high rates of speed toward their fans. Teams have responded by putting up protective nets and transparent walls, but fans are generally on their own if injured by something fl ying at them from the fi eld of play. In Arizona, we even have a statute that says so.

A.R.S. § 12-554 states the operators of baseball teams and facilities (including local governments and universities) are not liable for injuries to spectators who are struck by baseballs, bats or other equipment during a baseball game. Th is law applies before, during and aft er the game.

Th is law may sound harsh, but some of the alternatives are worse. Requiring fans to view baseball games only through protective fencing or netting would substantially reduce the desire of many to attend the games. Baseball is also unique in that people, perhaps especially boys, bring a baseball glove to the game in the hopes of catching a foul ball. Aft er the last out, a player may fl ip a ball into the stands on purpose, creating a treasured souvenir.

Sometimes laws appropriately protect people from hazards, such as defective products

✔ Practical Bible message ✔ Inspiring music ✔ Family atmosphere

Grow With Us!

HILLCREST BAPTIST CHURCH (Meets inside Ridgeline Academy) 602.350.0968 www.hillcrestbaptistaz.org

HILLCREST BAPTIST CHURCH

or contaminated water. Th ere is no need for a baseball to be on such a list. If you want more information on this topic, there is an article called “Rethinking Assumption of Risk and Sports Spectators” in the October 2003 UCLA Law Review.

Judge Gerald A. Williams is the Justice of the Peace for the North Valley Justice Court. The court’s jurisdiction includes Anthem and Desert Hills.

Can the players sue?

Arizona’s recommended jury instruction on assumption of risk reads in part, “A person assumes the risk of injury when he has knowledge of a particular risk, appreciates its magnitude, and voluntarily subjects himself to the risk under circumstances that show his willingness to accept that particular risk.” An athlete presumably knows the risks associated with the sport better than any spectator. If spectators cannot win a lawsuit, actual athletes likely cannot either.

In 2005, the Arizona Supreme Court did rule on an assumption-of-risk case involving a participant. In that case, a professional racecar driver fi led a lawsuit, against the company operating the racetrack, claiming that its employees negligently failed to rescue him more quickly and failed to provide appropriate emergency medical care after his vehicle crashed into a wall and caught on fi re.

The trial judge granted summary judgment for the racetrack, but the driver appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the case and held that only juries, not judges, were authorized to determine whether the facts of a case triggered a valid assumptionof-risk defense. This case was then sent back to the trial court.