Spencer James Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High School
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61
| Iowa | 2017Background
- In July 2011 Spencer Ludman, a visiting high-school baseball player, was struck in the head by a line-drive foul ball while standing in an unprotected opening of the visitor’s dugout at Davenport Assumption High School; he suffered severe injuries.
- The dugout was below grade, 35'5" long, 7' wide, with a 25.5' fence covering most of the front but two five-foot openings at each end; Ludman was in the south opening when hit.
- Ludman sued Assumption in premises liability, alleging defective/dangerous dugout design and failure to provide protective fencing or alternate entrance; Assumption pleaded defenses including contact-sports exception, assumption of risk, and comparative fault.
- Trial evidence included ASTM dugout fencing recommendations, NFHS distance recommendation (60' from foul line), and testimony about other conference dugouts; the district court precluded evidence comparing other schools’ dugout designs (custom evidence).
- Jury returned verdict for Ludman (with 30% fault assigned to him); Assumption appealed, arguing duty, insufficiency of evidence, improper exclusion of custom evidence, and failure to give a lookout instruction. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school owed a duty under premises-liability standard | Ludman: Assumption, as land possessor, owed a duty of reasonable care to visiting players under Koenig/Restatement (Third) §51 | Assumption: contact-sports exception or primary assumption of risk (open/obvious danger) eliminated any duty | Court: Duty existed under §51/Koenig; contact-sports exception inapplicable to premises owner; open-and-obvious risk affects breach/contributory fault, not categorical no-duty |
| Sufficiency of evidence to submit negligence to jury | Ludman: ASTM/NFHS guidance, testimony about prior foul balls entering dugout, and safer alternatives created jury question | Assumption: evidence insufficient to prove duty or breach | Court: Substantial evidence supported submission to jury on negligence and causation |
| Exclusion of custom evidence (design of other conference dugouts) | Ludman: comparison to other dugouts irrelevant and would improperly prove due care | Assumption: custom evidence admissible to show usual practice and negate negligence | Held: District court abused discretion by excluding custom evidence; architect’s testimony about conference dugouts was admissible for jury consideration |
| Failure to give requested instruction on plaintiff’s lookout (comparative fault) | Ludman: Testimony showed he was watching the game; lookout instruction unnecessary/misleading | Assumption: Evidence that Ludman did not follow the ball supported a proper-lookout instruction for comparative fault | Held: Court erred in refusing proper-lookout instruction; record supported submission and its omission prejudiced Assumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635 (Iowa 2009) (adopting general negligence standard for land possessors and multifactor duty analysis)
- Feld v. Borkowski, 790 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 2010) (articulating the contact-sports exception between participants)
- Dudley v. William Penn College, 219 N.W.2d 484 (Iowa 1974) (player hit by foul ball; sponsor not absolved of duty; plaintiff must produce substantial evidence of want of due care)
- Arnold v. City of Cedar Rapids, 443 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1989) (limited-duty/primary-assumption rule for spectators in unprotected areas behind home plate)
- Wieseler v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 540 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 1995) (known and obvious dangers do not automatically eliminate landowner duty; such risks affect plaintiff negligence)