By: Jessica P.G. Newman, Cypress LLP

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=67eb2fa5-a3ff-4061-a7aa-8a6e4f78816a

Mayes v. La Sierra University, Cal. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Filed Jan. 7, 2022, Case No. E076374

(https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E076374.PDF)

The “baseball rule” may no longer be the textbook example of assumption of the risk in California. In Monica Mayes v. La Sierra University, the California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor the defendant, La Sierra University (“La Sierra”), in a case involving a spectator injured by foul ball while watching a college baseball game. The Court held that that the baseball rule is “out of step” with California’s primary assumption of the risk doctrine.

The Baseball Rule

For “over a century,” the baseball rule has shielded professional sports teams and their owners from liability so long as they take “minimal precautions” to protect spectators. Under the rule, a spectator attending a baseball (or other) game generally assumes certain inherent risks of harm, such as being struck by a ball that leaves the field of play. The rule has expanded over time to protect operators of all sorts of dangerous and risky activities from liability when a participant is injured as a result of risk inherent to the activity.

The Mayes Facts

In April 2018, Monica Mayes was severely injured when she was hit by a foul ball while attending a baseball game on the La Sierra campus. Unable to find seats behind home plate, Mayes and her husband set up folding chairs in a grassy area along the third base line along with hundreds of other spectators. La Sierra’s field featured above ground dugouts and did not have protective netting over the dugouts on the first- and third-base lines. The raised dugout partially obstructed their view of the field. There was no crowd control and were no posted signs. During the game, a batted ball flew over the dugout and struck Mayes in the face.

Mayes sued La Sierra for negligence. La Sierra had what looked to be a cut-and-dried case. A spectator showed up to a baseball game knowing that she might be struck by a foul ball. La Sierra expected to be protected under the baseball rule so long as it did not somehow make the game more dangerous. After all, Ms. Mayes’s injury was the type of risk one could expect at a baseball game. The trial court agreed, citing the baseball rule and calling it “a textbook primary assumption of the risk case.”

The Baseball Rule Revisited

Reversing summary judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the baseball rule is “out of step” with California’s assumption of the risk doctrine.

The assumption of the risk doctrine limits the participants of inherently risky sports and recreational activities from holding teams, owners, and operators liable for personal injuries. Under the doctrine, teams, owners, and operators owe participants two duties. First, they have an obligation not to do anything that would increase the risk of harm. Second, they “have an additional duty to undertake reasonable steps or measures to protect their customers’ or spectators’ safety – if they can do so without altering the nature of the sport or activity.” In other words, if reasonable measures exist to increase safety and minimize risks without changing the nature of the activity, then defendants must implement them.

The problem with the baseball rule, according to the Court of Appeal, is that it overly focuses on the first prong of a defendant’s duty. By assuming that a spectator at a baseball game necessarily risks getting hit by a ball, the rule fails to address whether the defendant could have taken steps to minimize the inherent risk of injury without changing the nature of the game.

The lower court erred in relying on the baseball rule without first determining whether there were reasonable precautions La Sierra could have taken to prevent Mayes’ injury. La Sierra, also relying on the baseball rule, did not attempt to show that it was unable to take additional steps to protect Mayes “because, for example, no such steps were reasonable, or no such steps could have been taken without changing the nature of the game or adversely affecting spectators’ enjoyment.” Without such a showing, La Sierra was not entitled to summary judgment.

Takeaways

Mayes offers some important lessons for the owners and operators of any venue. First, Mayes reinforces the need for standard best practices such as making sure that spectators and participants are protected and warned of the risks of participation. Second, owners and operators of venues involving inherently dangerous activities should be aware that they have a duty not just to avoid increasing the dangers of the activity, but also to decrease the danger if such measures will not fundamentally alter the activity. Finally, do not assume that you can avoid liability based on well-known risks. Rather, as Mayes demonstrates, even a century-old rule can be revisited. Teams, owners, and operators should regularly assess and implement measures to protect spectators and participants.