437 S.W.3d 184
Mo.2014Background
- Coomer was injured by a hotdog tossed by Sluggerrr at a Royals game on Sept. 8, 2009, in Kauffman Stadium.
- Coomer sued the Royals Baseball Corporation for negligence and battery; the Royals admitted Sluggerrr’s acts but denied negligence and raised assumption of the risk and comparative fault defenses.
- Trial included a jury instruction tail directing consideration of whether hotdog injury was an inherent risk of watching a Royals game, which Coomer challenged.
- Coomer and his father sat about 15–20 feet from Sluggerrr during the Hotdog Launch; Coomer did not see the exact throw but felt a forceful impact a split second later.
- Coomer reported the injury eight days after the incident and later developed a detached retina requiring surgeries; the suit was filed in February 2010.
- The trial court overruled objections to the jury instructions and entered judgment for the Royals after a jury found no fault by the Royals and all fault on Coomer; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- The issue on appeal is whether implied primary assumption of the risk should be decided by the court (as law) or by the jury, and whether the Baseball Rule applies to the hotdog-toss context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the risk of Sluggerrr’s hotdog toss is an inherent risk of watching Royals baseball | Coomer argued such risk is not inherent to watching baseball and therefore not foreclosed by assumption of the risk | Royals contended the risk is inherent as part of the spectator experience | Not inherent; it is a legal question for the court |
| Application of Gustafson comparative fault to implied secondary assumption of the risk | Gustafson precludes analysis of the plaintiff’s conduct only as to implied secondary assumption of the risk | Gustafson preserves some secondary-assumption analysis under comparative fault | Implied secondary assumption of the risk is a partial fault question under Gustafson; not a complete bar |
| Whether implied primary assumption of the risk applies to spectators at a baseball game | Implied primary assumption of the risk may bar a duty when risk is inherent in watching the game | No duty to protect from inherent risks should be decided by the court; some risks are inherent | Question of inherent risk is a matter of law for the court; Baseball Rule doctrine does not bar liability for this non-inherent risk |
| Whether the jury instruction on inherent risk tailed to Instruction No. 11 prejudiced Coomer | Instruction No. 11 improperly allowed a jury to resolve a matter of law | Instruction was proper under the theory presented | Jurors were misled; judgment vacated and remanded for a new trial without Instruction No. 11 |
| Whether McHaffie bars pursuing multiple theories of imputed liability | Coomer should be able to present multiple theories (negligent training, supervision, etc.) | McHaffie allows only one theory if respondeat superior is admitted | McHaffie permits no multi-theory imputed-liability presentation when respondeat superior is admitted; case remanded with proper framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (comparative fault integrates improper secondary assumption of risk; express primary remains legal)
- Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 S.W.2d 170 (Mo. 1950) ( Baseball Rule; no duty to protect spectators from inherent risks behind home plate)
- Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 164 S.W.2d 318 (Mo. 1942) ( open and obvious dangers; no duty where invitee knows hazard)
- Krause v. U.S. Truck Co., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. banc 1990) (implied primary assumption of risk indicates no duty; framework for duty analysis)
- Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1982) ( foreseeability and implied consent concepts in assumption of risk)
- Sheppard v. Midway R-1 Sch. Dist., 904 S.W.2d 257 (Mo. App. 1995) ( implied primary assumption framework; causation concerns in context of risk)
- McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1995) (limits multiple liability theories when employer liability is admitted)
- Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball, 56 Cal. App. 4th 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (no duty to eliminate inherent baseball risks if not changing game; mascot conduct may create liability)