73 Cal.App.5th 686
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- On April 22, 2018, Monica Mayes was struck in the face by a foul ball while seated in a grassy, unscreened area along the third-base line at La Sierra University; the dugout there was raised ~8 feet and blocked her view of batters.
- La Sierra had only two small portable, screened bleachers behind home plate; no protective netting above the dugouts, no posted warnings, and no routine crowd control at the game (a playoff with unusually high attendance).
- Mayes alleged one negligence cause of action: failure to install netting, failure to warn, failure to provide sufficient screened seats, and failure to exercise crowd control.
- La Sierra moved for summary judgment asserting the primary assumption of risk doctrine (and alternatively Civil Code §846, later abandoned); the trial court granted summary judgment, calling the case a “textbook” primary-assumption-of-risk matter.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding La Sierra failed to meet its summary-judgment burden because triable issues exist whether La Sierra (a) increased the risk or (b) had a duty to take reasonable, non-game-altering measures (netting, warnings, seating, crowd control) to protect spectators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars Mayes’s negligence claim | Mayes: venue had duties to not increase risk and to take reasonable, non‑game‑altering measures (netting, warnings, seating, crowd control) | La Sierra: being hit by a foul ball is an inherent baseball risk; spectator chose unscreened seat, so primary assumption of risk bars recovery | Reversed summary judgment — triable issues exist on whether La Sierra increased risk or failed to take reasonable protective steps; defendant did not meet its burden on summary judgment |
| Duty to install protective netting over/ beyond dugouts | Netting is reasonable, inexpensive, does not alter play, and would reduce risk; expert says field violated college standards | La Sierra: no rule requires netting for NAIA/small college fields; no evidence installing netting was necessary here | Triable issue: jury could find netting reasonable and non‑altering; defendant failed to show no duty as matter of law |
| Duty to warn spectators that most seats were unprotected | Mayes: she reasonably expected netting (attended hundreds of games where netting existed); absence of warnings created false sense of security | La Sierra: condition was open and obvious; spectators choose seating with knowledge of risk | Triable issue: whether warnings were required is a fact question for jury |
| Duty to provide additional screened seats / crowd control at a high‑attendance playoff game | Mayes: only ~40 protected seats existed; La Sierra should have provided more protected seating and crowd control to prevent distractions blocking sightlines | La Sierra: did not invite/assign seating; providing more seating or crowd control would be unnecessary/unduly burdensome | Triable issue: reasonable jurors could differ whether providing more screened seats or crowd control was required and feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary‑judgment burden‑shifting framework: defendant first makes a prima facie showing, then burden shifts to plaintiff)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (describes primary assumption of risk and limited‑duty concept for sports/recreation)
- Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc., 14 Cal.App.5th 1283 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (operators must take reasonable, non‑game‑altering steps to reduce inherent risks)
- Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation, 45 Cal.App.5th 261 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (expanding protective netting can be a reasonable, non‑altering safety measure; rejects rote application of the baseball rule)
- Quinn v. Recreational Park Assn., 3 Cal.2d 725 (Cal. 1935) (classic formulation of the ‘‘baseball rule’’: spectators assume risk when choosing unscreened seats)
- Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc., 185 Cal.App.3d 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (applies baseball rule to bar recovery where spectator sits in unscreened area)
- Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball, 56 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (distractions extraneous to play can create triable issue whether risk was increased)
- Nemarnik v. Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, 103 Cal.App.4th 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (applies primary assumption of risk to puck‑injury claim but recognizes claims based on increased risk/crowd control)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (legal duty is generally a question of law; factual foreseeability and reasonableness remain jury questions)