Foul Ball

A recent CT court decision has limited the application of the limited duty rule. The limited duty rule means that a baseball club/stadium should not be liable for a fan injured by a foul ball landing in the stands if the facility screened the most dangerous part of the park (behind home plate is what the courts; claim is the most dangerous area), and provide enough screened seats for those who would reasonable want to use such seats. I feel that such a rule is good, if the teams/facilities complied with the letter and spirit of the rule. The spirit of the law is that screens are there to protect fans and that there are some very dangerous areas in a ball park that are often outside the reach of most safety nets. The first and third base lines are often the most dangerous areas, and they are rarely adequately protected. Even less protection is given to picnic areas. When a facility has fixed benches that face away from the action, it is hard to see how they can pay attention to the game when they are forced by the bench's position to be facing away from the field. This is even more dramatic when they have a table with their food on it so they have a reason not to watch the game. This is the factual issue in the CT case. The spectator was sitting in the picnic area when they were hit by a foul ball. They sued and the appellate court overturned the lower court's dismissal Isummary judgement) indicating that it should go to a jury whether the facility provided appropriate protection.

What do you think?
Gil-