Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC
296 P.3d 373
Idaho2013Background
- Rountree was a Boise Hawks season ticket holder injured by a foul ball at Memorial Stadium (Aug. 13, 2008) while in the Hawks Nest/Executive Club areas with extensive netting; the Executive Club lacked vertical netting and warning signs at its entrance.
- Rountree’s ticket back stated the holder assumed risk and dangers incidental to baseball, but he did not read it before injury.
- Rountree filed suit on Aug. 10, 2010 against about 17 defendants alleging negligence causing the eye injury.
- Boise Baseball moved for summary judgment asserting the Baseball Rule would limit duty to spectators; alternatively, that Rountree impliedly consented to the risk.
- The district court denied summary judgment on both grounds; Boise Baseball sought and obtained a permissive appeal under I.A.R. 12; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order.
- The Court held not to adopt the Baseball Rule and held that primary implied assumption of the risk is not a valid defense; costs on appeal awarded to Rountree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Idaho adopt the Baseball Rule limiting stadium duty to spectators? | Rountree seeks adoption of the Baseball Rule. | Boise Baseball argues in favor of adopting the Baseball Rule. | Baseball Rule not adopted. |
| Is primary implied assumption of risk a valid defense in Idaho? | Salinas bars assumption of risk; Winn leaves open but supports no defense. | Primary implied assumption of risk remains a potential defense. | Not a valid defense; Salinas applied to both primary and secondary forms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984 (Idaho 1985) (assumption of risk barred as defense except for express consent)
- Winn v. Frasher, 116 Idaho 500 (Idaho 1989) (clarified relationship between Salinas and primary assumption of risk; not binding to create a new rule)
- Stephens v. Stearns, 106 Idaho 249 (Idaho 1984) (duty rule reform for landlords; duty analysis with broader context)
- Sharp v. W. H. Moore, Inc., 118 Idaho 297 (Idaho 1990) (expanded duties of care under certain circumstances)
- Ball v. City of Blackfoot, 152 Idaho 673 (Idaho 2012) (defines invitee/licensee/trespasser duties for landowners)
- Eno v. Cincinnati Baseball Club Co., 147 N.E. 86 (Ohio 1925) (basis for Baseball Rule rationale in many jurisdictions)