South Shore Baseball, LLC d/b/a Gary South Shore RailCats and Northwest Sports Venture, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus
11 N.E.3d 903
Ind.2014Background
- DeJesus, a party of two, attended the South Shore RailCats’ opening game at the U.S. Steelyard in Gary, Indiana, where she was injured by a foul ball shortly after play began.
- Tickets stated the admission was a revocable license with no refunds, and warned of risks and policies; the holder assumed all game-related risks.
- DeJesus sat in Section 111, just outside the netting area that protects behind home plate, with no netting along the row where she sat.
- There were warnings about objects leaving the playing field, including a sign near her seat and announcements before the game; netting extended only to the end of Section 110, not to Section 111.
- DeJesus proposed premises liability and design/maintenance claims, specifically that insufficient protective netting breached the duty to her as a business invitee.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted transfer and ultimately reversed, granting summary judgment to South Shore on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baseball Rule should apply to bar liability | DeJesus seeks no Baseball Rule; argues for broader duty | South Shore urges no specialized baseball liability rule | No Baseball Rule adopted; no basis to impose liability under a special rule. |
| Whether there is a genuine issue on the premises-liability second element | DeJesus asserts the risk was unmanageable due to insufficient netting | South Shore argues warnings and expected risk negate the second element | No genuine issue; warnings and regular risk disclosures satisfied the second element. |
| Whether the netting undertaking created a duty in negligence | Netting increase duty to protect DeJesus | No increased risk or reliance from netting; no duty created by undertaking | No genuine issue; cannot show increased risk or reliance; summary judgment for South Shore. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (premises-liability elements; no duty to anticipate invitee’s unawareness of danger)
- Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1987) (respecting sports-event liability and non-special treatment of athletes)
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) ( adopts Restatement-based duty in certain undertakings; reliance analysis)
- Emhardt v. Perry Stadium, Inc., 46 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. App. 1943) (early premise liability case on screened seating; relevance questioned)
- Carr v. State, 93 N.E. 1071 (Ind. 1911) (historical context on broad duties and hazards in public life)