While a trip to the stadium to see a game can be a relaxing activity for many families, the Los Angeles Times recently published a story on the serious injuries that spectators can sometimes face due to many of these ballparks failing to provide enough protective netting. Specifically, while the baseball league mandates the presence of netting behind the home plate, it does not require the netting to be extended to the end of each dugout; or rather, into areas where spectators have been seriously injured by line drives, foul balls, and broken bats.
Instead, baseball identified the culprit of these injuries as the use of maple bats
Bats are supposedly more prone to shattering than traditional ash bats, and imposed new design standards to try and reduce the chances of the bats breaking. While this reduced the number of bats breaking and flying into the stands, it still leaves close to 800 or so bats predicted to snap each year and potentially hurt someone, indicating that additional netting would be a more meaningful way to reduce injuries at ballparks.
Some have said that those higher up making the decisions are possibly hesitant that fewer spectators would attend games if there were additional netting because it could interfere with participation in and interaction with the game itself. Regardless, as technology and what happens at these games changes, stadiums may need to find a way to protect spectators better than they have.
Assumption of Risk
The “assumption of risk” doctrine has, in some instances, protected those responsible for these injuries from providing for due compensation for medical costs for plaintiffs’ injuries, even though the theory of premises liability demands that if you are injured while on property that belongs to someone else, the property owner could be held liable for that injury.
Courts have, in the past, sometimes held that if your ticket says that you could get injured in the stadium and x and y parties are not responsible if you do, this is a valid waiver, or your assumption of the risks associated with attending the game as a spectator who could get injured. This is similar to when you park in a parking garage and you release the garage owner from certain liability related to your car being broken into or damaged.
However, as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, as more and more teams offer phone apps to spectators—encouraging them to order food, purchase merchandise, watch replays, etc. on their phones during the game—the assumption of risk doctrine could become weaker in terms of liability. In other words, it would no longer necessarily be a matter of fans getting injured because they aren’t paying attention, but rather, fans purposely being distracted by those running the games, thus creating a huge consumer safety issue. Perhaps this could finally convince the league to purchase additional netting to protect more spectators at games.
Harrell & Nowak
If you are injured while at a sports game (or otherwise on property that belongs to someone else), any injuries you experience may be addressed through a personal injury claim. An attorney in our New Orleans practice can guide you through every step, including addressing your medical needs and any lost wages. Contact Harrell & Nowak today for a free consultation.
Photo Credit: photos.nola.com