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

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialsummary judgmentsustainedduty of careappellant

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealsummary judgmentsustainedduty of careappellant

Related Cases

Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 104 Cal.App.4th 703, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 529, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,483, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,237, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,355

Facts

Andrew Sanchez, a college baseball pitcher, sustained severe brain injuries when struck by a line drive hit by a player using a newly designed aluminum bat, the Air Attack 2. Sanchez filed a negligence lawsuit against the bat manufacturer, Hillerich & Bradsby Co., and the college sports association, NCAA, claiming that the bat significantly increased the risk of injury. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Sanchez could not prove causation. Sanchez appealed, arguing that the bat's design increased the inherent risks of the sport.

Appellant Andrew Sanchez, a pitcher, was seriously injured when struck by a line drive hit by an aluminum bat. He filed suit against the bat manufacturer and others alleging that the design and use of this particular bat significantly increased the inherent risk in the sport of baseball that a pitcher would be hit by a line drive.

Issue

Did the design and use of the Air Attack 2 aluminum bat substantially increase the inherent risk of injury to Sanchez, thus precluding summary judgment for the manufacturer?

Rule

In negligence cases involving sports, a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport voluntarily played by the plaintiff. However, a defendant does owe a duty to participants not to increase the risk of harm beyond that which is inherent in the sport. If a defendant's actions increase the risk of harm, primary assumption of risk is not applicable, and the issue may shift to secondary assumption of risk.

A defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in a particular sport voluntarily played by the plaintiff; but the defendant owes a duty to participants not to increase the risk of harm over and above that inherent in the sport.

Analysis

The appellate court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Air Attack 2 bat increased the risk of injury to Sanchez. Evidence presented by Sanchez indicated that the bat was designed to increase the speed of the ball, which could lead to a higher likelihood of injury. The court noted that the NCAA and Pac-10 were aware of the increased risks associated with newer aluminum bats, suggesting that the defendants may have breached their duty of care.

Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the design and use of a newly designed aluminum baseball bat substantially increased the inherent risk pitcher faced during a baseball game, thus precluding summary judgment for bat manufacturer in pitcher's negligence action for severe brain injuries sustained when he was hit by a baseball.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding the increased risk posed by the bat and the causation of Sanchez's injuries.

We reverse.

Who won?

The appellate court's decision to reverse the summary judgment means that Sanchez, the appellant, is the prevailing party in this appeal. The court recognized that there were significant factual disputes regarding the design of the Air Attack 2 bat and its impact on the risks faced by pitchers, which warranted further examination in a trial setting.

The appellate court's decision to reverse the summary judgment means that Sanchez, the appellant, is the prevailing party in this appeal.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Kelly v. McCarrick, 155 Md.App. 82, 841 A.2d 869, 185 Ed. Law Rep. 662

Kennedy v. Syracuse University, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1995 WL 548710

Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, 654 Pa. 324, 215 A.3d 3, 370 Ed. Law Rep. 318

Christian v. Eagles Landing Christian Academy, Inc., 303 Ga.App. 113, 692 S.E.2d 745, 256 Ed. Law Rep. 934, 10 FCDR 1080

Pegram v. Nelson, 469 F.Supp. 1134