A few days ago, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a lower-court ruling and found that a fan seriously injured by a foul ball while lining up at a concession stand at a Newark Bears game could sue the team and the concessionaire that served him. The court held that stadiums must provide protection for fans not in their seats watching the game, such as those at concession stands.
The New Jersey decison stands in contrast to a higher-profile ruling by the Massachusetts Appeals Court last month that a woman seriously injured by a foul ball while sitting in her seat at Fenway Park could not sue the Red Sox. And a $10 million lawsuit by a woman who lost her eye to a foul ball at Tiger Stadium several years ago is evidently still pending, according to this article that alleges fans are significantly injured by foul balls as often as once every game. Indeed, the Tigers are apparently snakebitten when it comes to ballpark injuries.
The law in most jurisdictions is that when you buy a ticket and enter a sporting grounds -- be it a ballpark, a stadium or an ice rink -- you accept the risk that inadvertant injuries may result from the action on the field. Indeed, almost all tickets include a disclaimer on the back attesting to this. But baseball is unique in the frequency and intensity by which objects can come flying off the playing surface and into the stands. Notwithstanding the tragic death of a girl at a Columbus Blue Jackets game a year or so ago, hockey pucks rarely fly into the stands and rarely cause grievous damage when they do. Footballs hardly ever enter the bleachers, and basketball players are just as likely to launch themselves into the courtside seats chasing balls as are the balls to bounce in by themselves. But in baseball, where only one fan (a 14-year-old boy in 1971 Los Angeles) has ever been killed by a foul ball, screaming liners into the stands are nonetheless commonplace.
Evidence indicates that a three-foot plexiglass screen down the first- and third-base lines would cut down on a great many of the worst ballpark injuries -- but neither the front-row fans nor the ballclubs seem particularly interested in cutting down that level of accessibility to the field. How many young fans receive their first souveniers when an outfielder or first-base coach tosses a harmless foul roller into the front row? But if the $10M suit against the Tigers succeeds, then ballclubs will be forced to ratchet up their insurance coverage tremendously -- and that price will almost certainly be passed along directly to the ticket-buying consumer.
There are many lawyers frequenting Batter's Box, but this is a topic that everyone can voice an opinion on: what should be the law, and what should be the official MLB policy, regarding the protection of baseball fans from injuries incurred by foul balls? Should the plexiglass screen be mandated in all parks, regardless of costs and regardless of actual risk? Should fans be required to sign a clear waiver of the right to sue before entering the stadium? Or should the risk of getting an 80-mph foul ball in the face be simply another aspect of a day at the park -- one that forces the young, casual or easily distracted fan to take a safer seat or accept the risks of doing otherwise?
The New Jersey decison stands in contrast to a higher-profile ruling by the Massachusetts Appeals Court last month that a woman seriously injured by a foul ball while sitting in her seat at Fenway Park could not sue the Red Sox. And a $10 million lawsuit by a woman who lost her eye to a foul ball at Tiger Stadium several years ago is evidently still pending, according to this article that alleges fans are significantly injured by foul balls as often as once every game. Indeed, the Tigers are apparently snakebitten when it comes to ballpark injuries.
The law in most jurisdictions is that when you buy a ticket and enter a sporting grounds -- be it a ballpark, a stadium or an ice rink -- you accept the risk that inadvertant injuries may result from the action on the field. Indeed, almost all tickets include a disclaimer on the back attesting to this. But baseball is unique in the frequency and intensity by which objects can come flying off the playing surface and into the stands. Notwithstanding the tragic death of a girl at a Columbus Blue Jackets game a year or so ago, hockey pucks rarely fly into the stands and rarely cause grievous damage when they do. Footballs hardly ever enter the bleachers, and basketball players are just as likely to launch themselves into the courtside seats chasing balls as are the balls to bounce in by themselves. But in baseball, where only one fan (a 14-year-old boy in 1971 Los Angeles) has ever been killed by a foul ball, screaming liners into the stands are nonetheless commonplace.
Evidence indicates that a three-foot plexiglass screen down the first- and third-base lines would cut down on a great many of the worst ballpark injuries -- but neither the front-row fans nor the ballclubs seem particularly interested in cutting down that level of accessibility to the field. How many young fans receive their first souveniers when an outfielder or first-base coach tosses a harmless foul roller into the front row? But if the $10M suit against the Tigers succeeds, then ballclubs will be forced to ratchet up their insurance coverage tremendously -- and that price will almost certainly be passed along directly to the ticket-buying consumer.
There are many lawyers frequenting Batter's Box, but this is a topic that everyone can voice an opinion on: what should be the law, and what should be the official MLB policy, regarding the protection of baseball fans from injuries incurred by foul balls? Should the plexiglass screen be mandated in all parks, regardless of costs and regardless of actual risk? Should fans be required to sign a clear waiver of the right to sue before entering the stadium? Or should the risk of getting an 80-mph foul ball in the face be simply another aspect of a day at the park -- one that forces the young, casual or easily distracted fan to take a safer seat or accept the risks of doing otherwise?
