South Shore Baseball, LLC d/b/a Gary South Shore Railcats, and Northwest Sports Venture, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus
982 N.E.2d 1076
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- DeJesus was hit in the face by a foul ball at a Gary South Shore Railcats May 23, 2009 game, sustaining serious injuries.
- DeJesus had prior notice of foul-ball risks, including warnings on her ticket, aisle signs, and a stadium announcer warning.
- DeJesus filed a premises liability claim and a negligence claim for continuous protective screening from first to third base; Appellants sought summary judgment; the trial court denied.
- The court adopts a limited duty rule for screening behind home plate and finds evidence satisfied by screening in front of an adequate number of seats behind home plate.
- The court reverses, granting summary judgment for Appellants, concluding the risk is not an unreasonable danger and the duties claimed by DeJesus are not legally required beyond the limited screening standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liability: is the foul-ball risk an unreasonable risk warranting liability? | DeJesus asserts Appellants should foresee and guard against foul-ball injuries. | Baseball spectators know the risk; not an unreasonable danger. | No; risk not unreasonable; premises liability fails. |
| Knowledge of the dangerous condition: did Appellants have actual/constructive knowledge of an unreasonable risk? | DeJesus argues Appellants should have anticipated patrons’ lack of awareness. | There was no evidence the risk was an unreasonable danger requiring heightened duty. | No genuine issue; duty not owed under premises liability. |
| Negligence duty to provide continuous screening: must baseball operators screen from first to third base? | Appellants failed to install continuous screening; duty exists. | Majority rule: duty is limited to behind home plate; no obligation to screen all seats. | Adopted limited duty rule; screening behind home plate suffices; no liability for continuous screening. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (landowner duty to invitees; Burrell three-factor test)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (premises liability; not unreasonable risk of harm in certain sports contexts)
- Akins v. Glens Falls City Sch. Dist., 424 N.E.2d 531 (N.Y. 1981) (limits of spectator risk; game hazards not always unreasonable)
- Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 635 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (spectator risk; screening not required for all patrons)
- Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 180 P.3d 1172 (Nev. 2008) (limited duty to screen behind home plate)
- Shaw v. Boston Am. League Baseball Co., 90 N.E.2d 840 (Mass. 1950) (spectator knowledge of inherent baseball risks)
- Schentzel v. Philadelphia Nat. League Club, 96 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1953) (noting common knowledge of foul balls in baseball)
- Thurmond v. Prince William Prof’l Baseball Club, Inc., 574 S.E.2d 246 (Va. 2003) (spectator realization of foul-ball risk)
- Romeo v. Pittsburg Assocs., 787 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (common knowledge of foul-ball risk in baseball)