Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High School

Facts

In May 2011, Ludman (P) graduated from Muscatine High School. During that summer, he was a member of the school's baseball team. On July 7, P traveled with his team to play a baseball game against D at the baseball field on their school grounds. The visiting team's dugout was located on the first-base side of the field, thirty feet from the first-base foul line. There was a fence in front of the majority of the visitor's dugout, twenty-five and a half feet in length, extending from the ground to the ceiling of the dugout. At each end of the visitor's dugout, there was a five-foot-wide opening in the fence to allow players access to the field and the dugout. There was a bench in the visitor's dugout positioned behind the fence, and it had two levels on which the players could sit. P was in the visitor's dugout and was due to bat after the current batter and the batter on deck. As it became unlikely he would bat that inning, P grabbed his glove and hat in preparation to retake the field. After retrieving his glove and hat, he turned to watch the game standing in the south opening of the dugout. P watched the pitcher throw the ball. He heard the bat hit the ball and was looking to see where the ball went. He saw the ball in his peripheral vision before it entered the south opening of the dugout and struck him in the head. The time from the moment the ball hit the bat until it hit P as a split second. The ball fractured P's skull. P's hospitalization lasted for twelve days. After discharge, P received speech therapy, motor skills therapy, and treatment for depression and anxiety. In March of 2012, he began having seizures, requiring anti-seizure medication. He also continued to deal with posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, and behavioral issues. P sued D alleging negligence. D denied the claims of negligence and asserted the contact-sports exception to negligence, assumption of the risk, and P's negligence, and comparative fault. D motioned for summary judgment alleging the contact-sports exception applied. The court denied the motion for summary judgment. Before trial, P filed a motion in limine to exclude D's proffered evidence of other high school dugouts in the same conference as proof of due care or as a standard of safety. The court decided the parties were not to refer to other dugouts during the case, but to limit themselves to precise facts before the jury concerning D's facility. P got the verdict and D appealed. In part, D claims that the district court erred in barring it from presenting evidence concerning the custom and standard practice in the design and construction of dugouts at schools throughout the Mississippi Athletic Conference, in which both D and Muscatine High School were members

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.