An appellate panel reversed a Riverside order for summary judgment in the negligence case of a La Sierra University foul ball that caused a woman brain damage, eye damage and skull fractures.
Plaintiff, appellant and Marymount University baseball mother Monica Mayes was struck in the face by the foul ball in a playoff game April 22, 2018, while seated along the unnetted third-base line, behind the dugout.
Negligence claim
Mayes sued La Sierra University, claiming the university was negligent for not installing protective netting over the dugouts, for not providing enough protected seats, for not warning spectators that the only protected seats were behind home plate, and for not conducting crowd control that would have cleared distractions and given Mayes the ability to see the ball.
Although Mayes had attended between 300 to 400 baseball games, knew balls were known to hit the stands, and chose her seat, she thought the seat had protective netting, and was distracted by the high number of people setting up umbrellas and tents, according to the ruling.
Response
La Sierra moved for summary judgment, claiming that Mayes’ case was barred by both the risk doctrine, which states individuals who voluntarily expose themselves to risks cannot recover damages, and the “recreational use” immunity statute, which states that owners of property used for recreational purposes are not responsible for risks due to the nature of the recreation, and that the case was “a textbook primary assumption of the risk case.”
Riverside Superior Judge Daniel Ottolia granted the motion.
“There is no question that being struck by a foul ball is an inherent risk of watching a baseball game, and that primary assumption of the risk bars claims for injuries common to baseball,” the court wrote.
Appeal
The appellate panel found triable issues on all four of Mayes’ causes of action.
Stadium owners have an additional duty to undertake reasonable steps or measures to protect their spectators’ safety without altering the nature of the sport, the panel said, citing the 1992 case Knight v. Jewett, the 2017 case Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc and the 2020 case Summer J. v. U.S. Baseball Federation.
Stadium owners have a duty to not increase risks, they also have a duty to mitigate them as well, the panel found.
Riverside Superior Court failed to determine whether La Sierra mitigated risks in attending games, and erroneously granted the motion for summary judgment, the appellate court ruled.
Reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions on each of Mayes’ claims, the panel claimed.
In addition, the panel found La Sierra’s dependence on the 1986 case Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. faulty, because Knight v. Jewett redefined the risk doctrine later.
Parties
Joseph Di Monda of Angelo & Di Monda represented Mayes.
Ted M. Lee and Charles F. Nikolenko of The Lee Law Group represented La Sierra University.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Division Two Associate Justice Richard Fields wrote the opinion, which Associate Justices Douglas Miller and Frank Menetrez joined.
Case no: E076374
Superior court case no: RIC1820750
Read the ruling here.
