45 Cal.App.5th 261
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- 12-year-old Summer J. was struck in the face by a line-drive foul ball while seated in unprotected grandstand/bleacher seating at Blair Field during a US Baseball–sponsored event; she suffered serious eye/optic-nerve injury.
- Summer sued US Baseball (and other defendants) for negligence and premises liability, alleging inadequate protective netting in the perceived danger zones and that limited netting created a false sense of security.
- US Baseball demurred, arguing the primary assumption of risk (inherent-risk/baseball rule) and the open-and-obvious doctrine barred recovery; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for US Baseball.
- Summer appealed from the judgment and the postjudgment denial of her motion to tax costs.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Summer stated viable claims that, if proved, would show US Baseball (as sponsor/operator) had a duty to take reasonable safety measures (e.g., extended netting) that would minimize risks without altering the nature of baseball; the court remanded and granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the primary assumption of risk bars a spectator’s negligence/premises claim for being hit by a foul ball against a stadium sponsor/operator | Summer: stadium sponsor/operator owes duty to take reasonable measures (e.g., extending netting) that reduce risk without altering the game | US Baseball: primary assumption of risk eliminates any duty to protect spectators from balls; no duty to eliminate inherent risks | Court: Primary assumption of risk does not automatically bar claims against operators; operators may have duty to reasonably minimize risks without altering the sport — pleadings stating such a duty survive demurrer |
| Whether failure to provide extended protective netting in field‑level/front-row seating can be a breach of duty | Summer: lack/insufficiency of netting in perceived danger zones and seat configuration increased risk; extending netting would increase safety without changing the game | US Baseball: providing netting would eliminate inherent risk and impermissibly alter baseball; thus no duty to provide it | Court: Allegations that extended netting would minimize risk without altering the game are sufficient at pleading stage; plaintiff may amend to allege such facts |
| Whether the open-and-obvious danger doctrine defeats a failure-to-warn claim on demurrer | Summer: presence of some netting misled spectators and seating/configuration/distractions may have concealed or increased danger — factual issues for trial | US Baseball: danger of foul balls is obvious; no duty to warn | Court: Obviousness is a factual question here (given alleged misleading netting and atypical seat proximity/distractions) and cannot be resolved on demurrer |
| Whether sustaining demurrer without leave to amend was proper | Summer: alleged additional facts could cure pleading defects (netting, seat proximity, distractions, sponsor/operator role) | US Baseball: defects cannot be cured because inherent-risk doctrine is a complete bar | Court: Trial court erred; demurrer should have been sustained with leave to amend — plaintiff given opportunity to file second amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 N.Y. 479 (NY 1929) (Cardozo articulates the “timorous may stay at home” formulation of spectator assumption of risk)
- Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., 3 Cal.2d 725 (Cal. 1935) (stadium management owes duty of ordinary care and must provide screened seats for those reasonably expected to request them)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Cal. 1992) (California’s primary assumption of risk doctrine in sports: plaintiffs assume inherent risks; defendants’ duties depend on role)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (Cal. 2003) (role of defendant/operator affects scope of duty in recreational settings)
- Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal.4th 1148 (Cal. 2012) (primary assumption of risk applies beyond sports; operators must not increase inherent risks and may be required to take routine safety measures)
- Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball, 56 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (distraction by mascot can raise triable issue whether spectator risk was increased beyond inherent risk)