Rountree v. Boise Basebal

296 P.3d 373 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P took his wife and two grandchildren to a D baseball game. P concedes the stadium has 'exceptionally extensive [mesh] netting' to protect spectators from errant foul balls. Most portions of the stadium are protected by vertical mesh netting approximately 30 feet high, and several areas are protected from above by horizontal netting. P's tickets were in the 'Viper' section, which is protected by netting. The 'Hawks Nest,' which is a dining area along the third base line, is covered by both vertical and horizontal netting. Adjacent to the Hawks Nest, at the 'very end of the third base line,' is the 'Executive Club.' The Executive Club, while covered by horizontal netting, 'is one of the only areas in the whole stadium not covered by vertical netting.' During the game, P went to the Executive Club, and while talking to someone, he stopped paying attention to the game. Approximately ten minutes later, Rountree heard the roar of the crowd and turned his head back to the game. He was struck by a foul ball and, as a result, lost his eye. The entrance to the Executive Club has no warning signs regarding the dangers of being hit by foul balls. The back of P’s ticket contained a disclaimer about being injured by thrown or batter balls. P asserts he never read the back of his ticket prior to the injury. P sued D. D moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court should adopt the Baseball Rule, which limits the duty of stadium operators to spectators hit by foul balls, and find that D complied with it. D also argued that P impliedly 'consented to the risk of being hit by a foul ball.' The court denied the motion, and D appealed.