Indiana Supreme Court Finds for RailCats but Declines to Adopt Baseball Rule in Fan's Foul Ball Injury Case

Gary Southshore RailCats Home Ballpark

Southshore Baseball, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus, No. 45S03-1308-CT-531 (Ind., 2014)

What Happened?

On May 23, 2009, Juanita DeJesus attended the Gary Southshore RailCat's opening day game at The U.S. Steel Steelyard in Gary, Indiana.  On this warm, clear night, the RailCats were set to battle their Northern League foes, the Fargo-Moorhead RedHawks.  Ms. DeJesus and her fiance attended the game, meeting their friend and her niece at their seats in section 111, which were just beyond the protective netting behind home plate along the first base line.  

Second baseman Carlo Cota, the second batter of the game, hit a pop-up foul ball back into the stands.  Ms. DeJesus saw Cota make contact with the ball but as she looked up to find it, the ball struck her in the face.  As a result, she sustained several fractured facial bones and was left with permanent blindness in her left eye.

Ms. DeJesus filed a lawsuit against the RailCats claiming that they "were negligent in failing to make [the] premises reasonably safe for [her], a business invitee."  Specifically, she claimed that the RailCats should have extended the netting further down the line to have protected her seat from foul balls.  She even hired an expert who opined that the netting should have protected all of the seating sections.

The RailCats countered that the netting was adequate and that plaintiff had not produced any evidence, other than the claims of their expert, that the netting was defective.  Additionally, the defendants argued that there was no evidence that plaintiff failed to appreciate the danger of foul balls entering the stands or that being struck by a foul ball was an unreasonable risk of harm.  Finally, they urged the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt the "Baseball Rule" in which the RailCats would have been absolved of liability for a foul ball injury like this because they provided screening behind home plate sufficient to meet the ordinary demand for those protected seats.

Based on these defenses, the defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's case due to her inability to prove the negligence or premises liability claims.

Who Won?

Although the RailCats were not able to beat the RedHawks on that May 23rd evening, losing 3-2 in 10 innings, they ultimately prevailed in this case.

Initially, the trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment but allowed defendants to pursue an immediate appeal.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court and returned the case with instructions to grant the defendants' summary judgment motion in its entirety.  They specifically adopted the majority rule that a baseball stadium operator has only the duty to screen the most dangerous areas behind home plate.

The case was thereafter accepted by the Supreme Court for review.  The Supreme Court declined to adopt the Baseball Rule but affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals having dismissed Ms. DeJesus' case.

Why?

The Court cited this passage from the 1911 case of Charles Carr v. State in which plaintiff had been convicted of playing baseball on Sunday, in violation of a Draconian Indiana law which prohibited "rioting, hunting, fishing, quarreling, at common labor or engaged in his usual avocation" on Sundays.  

That baseball has come to be the one great American outdoor game; that it is played during the summer season throughout the land by boy and youth and man, beginner, amateur, and professional, in country village, town, and city; that it is played out of doors in seasonable weather; that it engages the mind alike of the participant and the spectator in an entertaining way; that it trains the body to vigor and activity and to a degree the mind to alertness; that the playing of a game requires but a fraction of a half day; that it cannot be successfully played at night; that those who witness it find in it for the time a relief mentally and physically from the stress of the intense life we as a people lead - are facts known of all men, and of which the courts and Legislatures cannot be wholly ignorant.  Carr v. State, 175 Ind. 241, 93 N.E. 1071 (Ind., 1911).

Despite the inclusion of this romantic passage and an acknowledgement that over a dozen other states had adopted the Baseball Rule, the Court was not convinced that baseball was worthy of its own special rule of liability.  The Court ultimately concluded that the enactment of the Baseball Rule in Indiana was better left the judgment of the legislature, recognizing that Arizona, Colorado, Illinois and New Jersey had codified the Baseball Rule.

With regard to the premises liability claims, the Court held that the warnings regarding the potential danger of foul balls printed on the tickets, posted on signs and announced over the public address system were adequate such that the RailCats would have had no reason to believe that DeJesus "would not realize the danger or that she would not protect herself against it."  

As to the negligence claims made by plaintiff, the Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish that she had relied on the netting to protect her from the danger presented by foul balls.  Specifically, she had testified in her deposition that she had seen foul balls enter the stands before at RailCats games and even admitted that she knew that a foul ball could come her way while she was sitting in her seat that day.   

The Supreme Court of Missouri Declares that Getting Hit by a Hot Dog is Not an Inherent Risk of Attending a Royals Baseball Game

Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., SC93214 (Mo., 2014)
Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., WD73984, WD74040 (Mo. App. 2013)

Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, 1016-CV04073

What happened?

The Royals mascot, Sluggerrr, is a large lion played by John Byron Shores.  Since 2000, Shores has been famous for launching hotdogs into the crowd from an air cannon and tossing them by hand in entertaining ways, including over his shoulder and behind his back. 

On September 8, 2009, John Coomer attended the Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers game at Kauffman Stadium with his father.  Instead of sitting in their ticketed seats, Mr. Coomer and his father found seats approximately six rows behind the dugout on the third base side. 

Mr. Shores performed the “Hotdog Launch” promotion between the third and fourth innings of this game and after finishing with the air gun, began manually tossing foil-wrapped hotdogs into the stands from his position atop the third base dugout.    

Mr. Shores attempted to throw a hotdog behind his back in the direction of Mr. Coomer, just as Mr. Coomer turned to look at the scoreboard.  The hotdog reportedly hit Mr. Coomer in the face with enough force to knock off his hat, but he did not report the incident to the Royals at that time.  He also attended the game the next day and noticed no issues with his vision.

Two days after the occurrence, Mr. Coomer first began to notice vision problems.  He was ultimately diagnosed with a detached retina and cataracts in his eye - allegedly as a result of the errant toss.  He underwent two surgeries and claimed a permanent vision loss in the eye, despite an artificial lens implant. 

The case was tried in front of a Jackson County jury in March, 2011.  The jury deliberated and returned its verdict on March 9, 2011.

Who won?

The Royals.  The jury found that Mr. Coomer was 100% at fault for the occurrence and awarded him no damages for his injuries.  

The appeal

Plaintiff appealed judgment on the verdict claiming that the court erred in instructing the jury on the various assumption of risk defenses claimed by the Royals.  The plaintiff specifically argued that a “mascot throwing hot dogs directly at [fans] is not an inherent or unavoidable risk of the game of baseball.”

The Royals countered that Mr. Coomer, who admittedly had been to 175 previous games at Royals Stadium and had previously seen the Hotdog Launch, assumed the risk of being hit by the hotdog because the promotion was a customary part of the game and Mr. Coomer consented to the risk by attending the game.

Who won the appeal?   

Mr. Coomer. 

The appellate court noted that everyone who attends a baseball game assumes the risk of being hit by a ball because the risk is inherent to the game; however, the court agreed with the plaintiff that the trial court erred in submitting the assumption of risk defense to the jury because, “the risks created by a mascot throwing promotional items do not arise from the inherent nature of a baseball game.”

The primary assumption of risk instruction given by the trial court informed the jury that this was a complete bar to recovery.  Because the primary assumption of risk instruction should not have been given, judgment was reversed.

Supreme Court

The Royals sought to have the case appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.  The case was accepted and oral arguments proceeded on September 11, 2013. 

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, finding that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to determine whether being injured by the hotdog toss was an inherent risk of watching a Royals home game, instead finding that the judge should have decided the issue.  Specifically and importantly, "The risk of being injured by Sluggerrr's hotdog toss...is not an unavoidable part of watching the Royals play baseball."  

The Court reiterated that the Royals likely would not have been responsible for Mr. Coomer's injury if it had been caused by a foul ball or bat leaving the field and cited with approval prior decisions supporting the "Baseball Rule" as it was applied in Missouri.  They went so far as to declare that being injured by the hotdog toss was not even an inherent risk of the hotdog toss.  

What's Next for Mr. Coomer?    

The trial court's judgment for the Royals was vacated and remanded, meaning that the results of the first trial were voided and the case was returned to the trial court for another trial or, perhaps, a potential settlement.

Fan Injured in Promotional Horse Race Loses in Lawsuit Against Atlantic League Ball Club

Duncan v. Somerset Patriots Baseball Club, No. A-4279-08T3 (N.J. Super., 2010)

What Happened?

The Somerset Patriots are an independent minor league baseball team established in 1998 and based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.  The Patriots have enjoyed great success, winning the Atlantic League championship in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009 under the guidance of manager and former star reliever Sparky Lyle.  (In fact, the Patriots’ mustachioed mascot, Sparkee, was named after Lyle.)

Daniel Duncan attended the Patriots home game on August 5, 2006, a team whose roster featured the nephews of Hall of Famers Roberto Clemente (Edgard Clemente) and Ryne Sandberg (Jared Sandberg.)  

Duncan entered a random drawing to participate in several promotional events during the game and was selected to take part in the “Monmouth Park Horse Race.”  For this event, sponsored by the famous ocean-side racetrack of the same name, Duncan and a partner were given a horse head to carry (not the Godfather kind) and a bandanna to tie their legs together.  The race, itself, was to take place on the field, starting at home plate and ending at first base.

As Duncan went to take his first step, however, he lost his balance and fell, injuring his knee.  He claimed initially that he slipped on wet grass and did not allege any other defect that would have caused him to fall; however, he later testified at his deposition that he did not actually notice whether the grass was wet.  All of the other eyewitnesses testified the grass was dry.

The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the Patriots were not required to warn Duncan regarding the risks inherent in the three-legged race and that there was no evidence that the field was defective or had been improperly maintained.    

The Appeal

Plaintiff appealed claiming that there was a question of fact as to whether the field was defective and whether the Patriots should have warned him about the dangers he might encounter while taking part in the promotional race.

Who Won the Appeal?

The Somerset Patriots.  The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the injury lawsuit.

Why?

The reviewing court found that Duncan was aware of the hazards inherent in a three-legged race, having just participated in one with his son at a Boy Scout camp-out.  Furthermore they stated that, “walking and running on grass is a common experience, and the risk of doing so with any particular kind of footwear is known equally by the participant and the property owner.”

They felt further that the ball club could have provided warnings but this was balanced by the fact that Duncan voluntarily agreed to compete in the race.  Ultimately, the court held that the Patriots had no duty to warn plaintiff about the potential risks involved in the three-legged race.

Fan Sues Phillies After He is Hit in the Face By a Foul Ball He Tried to Catch Barehanded

Pakett v. The Phillies, LP, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa.Commw. Ct., 2005)

What Happened?

Plaintiff Neil Pakett, a dentist, attended the Philadelphia Phillies game at Veterans Stadium on June 25, 2001.  He was sitting in Section 232, Row 5, Seat 8 when Jimmy Rollins came to bat from the left side of the plate in the bottom of the first inning.  Rollins fouled off a pitch into Section 232. 

Dr. Pakett saw the ball coming towards him and attempted to catch it with his bare hands because he “wanted a souvenir.”  Unfortunately, Dr. Pakett was not able to catch the ball and it struck him in his left eye.  As a result, he experienced temporary blindness and underwent surgery.  He claimed that his full vision never returned.

Dr. Pakett was familiar with Section 232, having occupied the same seat 6 or 7 times over the span of several years.   Additionally, he was aware that foul balls were hit into the immediate vicinity of his seat 4 or 5 times per game.  This particular seat was about 80 feet from home plate, to the left of a plexiglass shield that had been installed in 1996 to better protect the fans behind the batter from foul balls.

Dr. Pakett conceded that a batted ball entering the stands could cause an injury and acknowledged that the back of the ticket contained a warning that he entered the stadium at his own risk. 

The Phillies and the City of Philadelphia moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit because there was no duty on their part to protect him from or warn him of the risk of being struck by a foul ball.  The court agreed and found that Dr. Pakett’s having been hit by the foul ball was an “inherent risk” of the game of baseball and that there were no issues with the backstop in place at Veterans Stadium at the time of the occurrence.   Finally, the court found that Dr. Pakett had “sufficient reaction time” to get out of the way of the ball but, rather, he intentionally tried to catch the ball to take home as a souvenir.  

Plaintiff appealed the ruling claiming that there was a duty to protect the area of the stands where plaintiff was sitting due to the occurrence of foul balls landing in that area with “great frequency, speed and force.”

Who won?

The Phillies and City of Philadelphia.  The court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment.

Why?

The chance to catch a foul and keep the ball is “one of the exciting thrills of attendance at the game.”   The “no-duty” rule was found to apply because the risk of being hit by the foul ball was a common and inherent risk of attending a baseball game and plaintiff assumed this risk by attending the game. 

Here, Dr. Pakett was struck by the foul ball during the course of the game while sitting in a seat he had occupied on other occasions.  He was well aware that foul balls frequently entered his section and as the particular ball came towards him, Dr. Pakett attempted to catch it instead of trying to avoid the ball.

Further, plaintiff introduced no evidence that the netting and plexigass protection behind home plate was inadequate or deviated from an established standard for Major League ballparks.      

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.

Merkle’s Boner and False Imprisonment

The Polo Grounds viewed from "Coogan's Bluff"

Talcott v. National Exhibition Co., 144 A.D. 337, 128 N.Y.S. 1059 (2 Dept., 1911)

What Was Merkle’s Boner?

On September 23, 1908 the Chicago Cubs played the New York Giants at the famed Polo Grounds.  Al Bridwell came to bat with two outs and the game tied 1-1 in the bottom of the ninth.  He laced a single to the outfield and the runner on third trotted home, thinking he had just scored the winning run.  The Cubs second baseman Johnny Evers, of the famed “Tinkers to Evers to Chance” double play combination and future Hall of Fame inductee; however, called for the ball from the outfield because Fred Merkle, the Giants runner on first, had not touched second base.  Although there is controversy regarding whether Evers got the actual ball back, the umpire ruled Merkle out at second and due to the force, the apparent winning run was erased.

As was common at the time, the fans at the Polo Grounds would walk across the field after the game to exit the ballpark.  By the time the play was decided and the winning run nullified, however, the fans believing the Giants had won were already streaming across the field and it was impossible to resume the game before the game was called on account of darkness. 

On October 6, 1908, the National League Board of Directors made its final ruling that because Merkle had failed to reach second, the force rule was applied correctly and the game was a tie.  At the end of the season, the Cubs and Giants were tied for first place and a makeup game was needed to determine which team would play in the World Series.  This game was played on October 8, 1908 at the Polo Grounds and reportedly drew 40,000 people, the largest crowd ever to have attended a single baseball game at the time.

The Cubs won this game over the Giants and went on to beat the Tigers 4-1 in the World Series, their last World Series victory.  The play was dubbed “Merkle’s Boner” and Fred Merkle was nicknamed “Bonehead.”  Years later, Merkle admitted that he never touched second but claimed he had been assured by umpire Bob Emslie that the Giants had won. Despite a solid 16-year Major League career, including four seasons with the Cubs, Merkle was never able to shake the stigma of the play. 

What happened?

As a result of the play and the October 6^th mandate for the makeup game, the Polo Grounds played host to the makeup game on October 8, 1908.  This game was “of very great importance to those interested in such games, and a vast outpouring of people were attracted to it.”  On the morning of the game, the ticket booths at the Polo Grounds were overwhelmed with people trying to secure reserved seats for that afternoon’s game.    

Plaintiff Fredrick Talcott, Jr. went to the ballpark intending to buy tickets and entered an “inclosure” where the ticket booths were located.  After finding that the tickets were sold out, he tried to leave the inclosure along with a great number of people also trying to exit at the same time.  As he attempted to leave, however, ballpark attendants prevented his exit and he was “detained in the inclosure for an hour or more, much to his annoyance and personal inconvenience” and brought this lawsuit seeking damages for false imprisonment.  He further claimed to have been pushed by the defendant’s “special policemen.” 

The Giants countered that plaintiff simply could have used one of the other exits available.  Mr. Talcott alleged, however, that he was not aware of any other exits to the inclosure and none were pointed out to him.

Who won?

Fredrick Talcott.  The case went to a jury trial and Mr. Talcott was awarded $500 in damages (approximately $12,000 today) and judgment was entered on May 19, 1910.  The Giants appealed and the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mr. Talcott.

Why?

The jury found that that plaintiff’s detention was unwarranted and awarded him $500.  The court agreed with this finding, ruled that the award was not excessive and found no reason to interfere with the jury’s verdict. 

Additionally, the court found that Mr. Talcott was not required to demonstrate that he incurred any special or actual damages as a result of the detention.            

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.