Orioles Pitcher Intentionally Throws Ball at Fan Causing Injuries at Fenway Park

Manning v. Grimsley, 643 F.2d 20 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1981)

What Happened?

The Baltimore Orioles and Boston Red Sox game at Fenway Park on September 16, 1975 featured a marquee match up between aces Jim Palmer and Luis Tiant.  Both pitchers would toss complete games, with Tiant shutting out the Orioles 2-0.

During the first three innings of the game, Orioles lefty Ross Grimsley was warming up in the visitor’s bullpen next to the right field bleachers.  He was being “continuously heckled” by the fans sitting in the nearby section and he stared the hecklers down on several occasions.  At the end of the third inning, as the bullpen catcher made his way back to the bench Grimsley threw a ball directly towards the hecklers at “more than 80 miles per hour.” 

The bullpen was separated from the stands by a wire mesh fence; however, the ball passed through the fence and struck David Manning (17) in the face.  Manning was admitted to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary where he had both of his eyes patched and he experienced some swelling to the left side of his face.  It was unclear whether he sustained any permanent injuries, however.  Grimsley replied that he was just warming up and did not mean to hit him.  He was “sorry as heck the whole thing happened.”

Manning filed suit against Grimsley and the Orioles for battery and negligence.   The case proceeded to trial and at the close of plaintiff’s case, the court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, meaning that plaintiff had not carried his burden of proof and was unable to prove the elements necessary to establish that a battery had occurred.  The negligence count survived; however, the jury subsequently found in favor of Grimsley and the Orioles.  Manning recovered nothing.

Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling on the battery count.

Who won?

Manning won the appeal on the battery count and was granted a new trial.  He did not appeal the jury’s verdict as to the negligence count.

Why?

In order to prove battery, Manning had to show that (1) Grimsley intended to harm him and (2) the harmful contact with him resulted directly or indirectly from Grimsley’s conduct.  Testimony from witnesses included eyewitness observations that Grimsley looked into the stands immediately following the heckling on several occasions and that “he had an angry, frustrated look on his face, as though he were releasing tension” at the moment he threw the ball towards the fans. 

The court found that in light of Grimsley’s status as an expert pitcher, the testimony regarding his actions in response to the heckling and the fact that “the ball traveled at a right angle to the direction in which he had been pitching and in the direction of the hecklers” that the jury reasonably could have determined that Grimsley intended (1) to throw the ball at the hecklers (2) to cause them imminent apprehension of being hit and (3) to respond to conduct presently affecting his ability to prepare to enter the game.  Accordingly, it was error for the district court to have directed a verdict in favor of Grimsley on the battery count.

Then what happened?

There is no further record regarding what happened upon rehearing.

Ross Grimsley went on to win 124 games, including 20 in 1978 with the Montreal Expos.

Fan Sues Andruw Jones and Braves For Errant Toss

Dalton v. Jones, 260 Ga.App. 791, 581 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. App., 2003)

What happened?

Plaintiff, Jacqueline Dalton attended the Atlanta Braves game on June 6, 2000 at Turner Field against the Toronto Blue Jays.  She claimed to have been hit by a baseball that had been thrown into the stands at the end of the inning by center fielder Andruw Jones.  Ms. Dalton was not watching the field because she was getting up from her seat, intending to get a pop from the concession stand.  She claimed to have sustained a permanent eye injury and facial disfigurement.  

Ms. Dalton alleged that the Braves were negligent in failing to provide her with sufficient protection and failing to properly train their players as to the potential dangers of tossing baseballs into the crowd.  She claimed that Mr. Jones should have warned her that he was going to be throwing the ball into the stands and should have yelled something akin to "fore" before tossing the ball. 

The Braves and Andruw Jones countered that Ms. Dalton had assumed the risk of injury from baseballs coming into the stands and that she failed to exercise care for her own safety.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Dalton's claims so she appealed.

Who won?

Andruw Jones and the Braves.  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case against both defendants.

Why?

The courts relied on the holding in a case from 1949, Hunt v. Thomasville Baseball Co., which held that a person who buys a ticket for a baseball game and chooses to sit in an unprotected section of the stands voluntarily assumes the risks of baseballs coming into the stands.  Ms. Dalton confirmed that she had not sat in the protected area of the park and was not keeping a close lookout on the field at the time of the occurrence.  

The court declined to require a duty to warn on the game of baseball finding that "no Georgia case has ever held that a warning is required before a baseball player throws a ball."  Furthermore, they held that whether a ball was thrown in the course of the game or between innings had no legal significance because the "throw occurred during a time which was necessary to the playing of the game, during which time the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury from bats, balls, and other missiles."  

Man Loses Eye When Struck By Foul Ball and Sues Minor League Boise Hawks

Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC, 296 P.3d 373 (Idaho, 2013)

What were the issues?

Should Idaho adopt the Baseball Rule? Did the plaintiff, a spectator at a professional baseball game, consent to the risk of being hit by a foul ball?

What is the Baseball Rule?

The Baseball Rule limits the liability for injury caused by foul balls if the owner of the stadium has adequately screened the “most dangerous part of the stadium” (usually those seats behind home plate) and has screened seats available to “as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to request them on an ordinary occasion.”

The courts in several states follow the Baseball Rule and several states including Illinois, Colorado and Arizona have adopted legislation codifying the Baseball rule.

What happened?

The Boise Hawks are the Class A Short Season affiliate of the Chicago Cubs and play their games at Memorial Stadium in Garden City, Idaho. On August 13, 2008, Bud Rountree took his wife and two grandchildren to the Boise Hawks game at Memorial Stadium. After eating dinner at the ballpark, they went the Executive Club to socialize. The Executive Club is located at the end of the third base line beyond the grandstand and an eating area called the Hawks Nest.

While having a conversation in the Executive Club section and facing away from the action, Mr. Rountree heard the crowd roar and turned his head back to the field just in time to be struck by a foul ball in his face. He sustained injuries to his eye that led to its removal. The Executive Club was covered by horizontal netting but was not protected by vertical netting.

The entrance to the Executive Club had no warning signs posted regarding the dangers of foul balls. The back of Mr. Rountree’s ticket, however, stated the warning, “THE HOLDER ASSUMES ALL RISK AND DANGERS INCIDENTAL TO THE GAME OF BASEBALL INCLUDING (BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY) THE DANGER OF BEING INJURED BY THROWN OR BATTED BALLS.” Mr. Rountree, a season ticket holder for more than 20 years, claimed that he had never read the back of his ticket before the injury occurred. In the seven years prior to this occurrence, Mr. Rountree was the only person to have suffered a major injury because of a foul ball.

Mr. Rountree filed a lawsuit against the Boise Hawks and a number of other defendants alleging that their negligence caused him to lose his eye. Several of the defendants filed motion for summary judgment with the court asking that the case be dismissed because of the Baseball Rule or, alternatively, because Mr. Rountree assumed the risk of being hit by the foul ball.

Who won?

Mr. Rountree. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the ruling of the district court, meaning that Mr. Rountree’s injury case would continue against the defendants.

Why?

This was the first time the issue of the Baseball Rule had been before the court in Idaho.

The district court found that while there “may be good reasons to adopt the Baseball Rule,” they deferred to the Idaho Legislature to decide whether to make the Baseball Rule the law.

The Supreme Court noted that despite so many other states having endorsed the Baseball Rule, its widespread acceptance was not enough for them to act similarly. The Court found that the rarity of this type of incident weighed against adopting the rule. Additionally, determining the areas of the stadium that should be protected by netting was an inquiry more appropriate for the Legislature to address.

Furthermore, the Court held that assumption of risk had no legal effect as a defense because Mr. Rountree did not provide express written or oral consent.

What about Mr. Rountree?

The case continues and appears to be headed towards trial. Memorial Stadium Inc. has been recently dismissed from the case so it is possible they negotiated a settlement with Mr. Rountree; however, this cannot be confirmed.