Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitysustainedduty of care
plaintiffnegligenceverdictsustained

Related Cases

Starego v. New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 970 F.Supp.2d 303, 302 Ed. Law Rep. 998
View Case »
Soderlund Bros., Inc. v. Carrier Corp., 278 Ill.App.3d 606, 663 N.E.2d 1, 215 Ill.Dec. 251
View Case »
Bowers v. NCAA, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL 1850089
View Case »
Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker, 806 F.Supp. 1236, 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1469
View Case »
Force by Force v. Pierce City R-VI School Dist., 570 F.Supp. 1020, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 959
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., nan

Facts

On April 14, 1976, the plaintiff attended a high school baseball game at the defendant school district's field. She chose to stand behind a three-foot fence along the third base line, approximately 10 to 15 feet from the backstop and 60 feet from home plate, as there were no seating facilities available. After about 10 minutes, she was struck in the eye by a foul ball, resulting in serious injury. The plaintiff alleged that the school district was negligent for not providing adequate screening along the baselines.

Approximately 10 minutes after arriving at the baseball field, plaintiff was struck in the eye by a sharply hit foul ball, causing her serious and permanent injury.

Issue

Whether the owner of a baseball field is liable in negligence for injuries sustained by a spectator struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened section of the field.

Whether such an owner, having provided protective screening for the area behind home plate, is liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by a spectator as a result of being struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened section of the field.

Rule

The owner of a baseball field must exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to spectators, which includes providing screening for the area behind home plate where the risk of being struck by a ball is greatest. The screening must be sufficient to protect those spectators who may reasonably be expected to desire such protection during an ordinary game.

The owner of a baseball field is only under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent injury to those who come to watch the games played on its field and, in the exercise of said reasonable care, the proprietor of a ball park need only provide screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest.

Analysis

In this case, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the existing backstop was inadequate for protecting spectators behind home plate or that there were insufficient screened seats. The court determined that the school district had fulfilled its duty of care by providing a backstop that was 24 feet high and 50 feet wide, which adequately protected the most dangerous area of the field. Since the plaintiff chose to stand in an area with less protection, the court found no negligence on the part of the school district.

In this case, it is undisputed that the school district equipped its field with a backstop which was 24 feet high and 50 feet wide. Plaintiff presented no evidence that this backstop was inadequate in terms of providing protection for the area behind home plate where there was a substantial likelihood of spectators being struck by misguided balls or that there was an insufficient number of screened seats for those who might reasonably be expected to desire such protection.

Conclusion

The court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the school district was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries as it had provided adequate protection.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was the Glens Falls City School District. The court found that the school district had met its duty of care by providing adequate screening behind home plate, which is where the risk of injury from foul balls is greatest. The plaintiff's choice to stand in an unscreened area did not impose liability on the school district, as there was no evidence presented that the existing safety measures were insufficient.

The majority held that there was no error of law which warranted disturbing the jury's verdict. The dissenters were of the view that, as a matter of law, there was no showing of any negligence on the school district's part.

You must be