LEGAL UPDATE
Featuring Comments On Important Legal Developments
Limited Duty to Protect Spectators
In a case of first impression, the Connecticut Superior Court in Teixiera v. New Britain Baseball Club, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV 054004214 (July 18, 2006, Shaban, J.) recently held that an owner of a stadium is not a guarantor of spectators’ safety. In Teixiera, Mr. Teixiera was given two (2) tickets to a Rock Cats game by a co-worker. In engaging in America’s favorite pastime, Mr. Teixiera brought his young son to the baseball game, and upon entering the stadium, purchased two (2) tickets that allowed him access to a patio area. The patio area is located on the first base line. As part of access to the patio, Mr. Teixiera and his son were allowed to eat at a special barbeque and watch the players warm up. While in the patio area, Mr. Teixiera was struck and injured by a baseball that came from an unknown player on the field.
Subsequently, Mr. Teixiera filed a one (1) count claim of negligence against the owner of the stadium. The owner moved for summary judgment and the court granted the owner’s motion. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court applied the “limited duty rule” and found that the “rule holds that the owner is only responsible for screening the most dangerous section of the field (the area behind home plate).” Id. The court further stated: “The limited duty precedents do not eliminate the stadium owner’s duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstanced to protect patrons against injury . . . Rather, these precedents define that duty so that once the stadium owner has provided adequately screened seats for all those desiring them, the stadium owner has fulfilled his duty of care as a matter of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
The court found that in order to fulfill the limited duty rule, an owner of a stadium merely has to put up netting behind home plate, which is commonly known as the area that most frequently has balls fly into the stands. Conversely, there is less of a risk of getting hurt by a ball where Mr. Teixiera was located, in the patio along first base line. Therefore, the owner is not obligated to have the same netting along the first base line that it had behind home plate. Since the owner had properly put up netting behind home plate, he had satisfied the limited duty rule and could not be held liable for Mr. Teixiera’s injuries.
But the court’s analysis did not stop there. The court continued by stating that “the possibility and danger of being struck by a baseball is an open and obvious danger when attending a baseball game.” Id. Indeed, spectators attend baseball games with the hope that they will catch a ball that happens to travel into the stands. Spectators such as Mr. Teixiera know that balls are likely to fly off the field and into other areas of the park as well as outside of the park, say for example over the Green Monster. Thus, as a spectator, Mr. Teixiera was generally familiar with the dangers of attending a baseball game. Mr. Teixiera could not establish that the owner was negligent in failing to protect him from a ball flying off of the field and into the patio.
Josephine A, Spinella, Esq.
jspinella@gmflaw.com
This newsletter is published by the firm of Gordon, Muir &Foley, LLP. The views, analysis and developments in the law that are reported and offered in this issue are intended to educate and assist lay persons in recognizing legal problems. They are neither intended as individual legal advice nor offered as a general solution to all apparently similar individual problems. Readers are cautioned not to attempt to solve their individual problems solely on the basis of the information contained herein, and are urged to seek legal advice for answers to specific problems. If you would like further advice regarding this or other employment related issues, please contact us at 860-525-5361, © 2005 Gordon, Muir & Foley, LLP.
