Edward v. City Of Albuquerque

241 P.3d 1086 (2010)

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 and their four-year-old son, Emilio, two-year-old daughter, Rachel, and ten-year-old daughter, Cassandra, were attending a Little League party at Isotopes stadium. D owns the stadium, which is leased by the Isotopes. Ps were in the stadium's picnic area, located beyond the left-field wall in fair ball territory. They 'had just sat down to eat when without a warning from anyone a baseball struck Emilio in the head.' During pre-game batting practice, Matranga (D) batted a ball out of the park into the picnic area, striking Emilio 'in the upper right portion of his head fracturing his skull.' The stadium has a screen or protective netting between home plate and the seats behind home plate but has no screen or protective netting between home plate and the seats beyond the left-field wall. Ps alleged that injury to Emilio was foreseeable and Ds owed a duty to exercise ordinary care for his safety. Ds argued that baseball is a unique spectator sport and 'justifies a specific definition of the duty owed by operators of baseball facilities.' They explain that 'baseball subjects spectators to an inherent risk of being struck by a batted ball . . . yet most spectators . . . prefer to sit in an area where they can watch the game without the obstruction of a screen . . . [and have] the opportunity to . . . catch a . . . ball that leaves the playing field.' Because proprietors of ballparks have a legitimate interest in catering to these desires, their duty should be limited. The district court granted summary judgment for Ds under the baseball rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the players. It reversed summary judgment for D and the Isotopes in that the remaining Ds owed a duty of ordinary care, not a limited duty defined by the baseball rule. D appealed.