{"id":100,"date":"2019-12-03T02:12:15","date_gmt":"2019-12-03T02:12:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/?post_type=chapter&p=100"},"modified":"2019-12-17T19:41:43","modified_gmt":"2019-12-17T19:41:43","slug":"scope-of-duty-examples","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/chapter\/scope-of-duty-examples\/","title":{"raw":"Scope of Duty Examples","rendered":"Scope of Duty Examples"},"content":{"raw":"SCOPE OF DUTY\/BASEBALL PARKS<\/strong>\r\n\r\nAkins v. Glens Falls City School Dist.<\/em> 53 N.Y.2d 325 (1981)\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/h2o.law.harvard.edu\/cases\/2474<\/a>\r\n\r\n\u201cOn this appeal, we are called upon to define the scope of the duty owed by a [441 N.Y.S.2d 645] proprietor of a baseball field to the spectators attending its games. The specific question presented is whether such an owner, having provided protective screening for the area behind home plate, is liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by a spectator as a result of being struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened section of the field. This case does not involve the \"culpable conduct\" (CPLR 1411)--be it assumption of risk or contributory negligence--of a spectator injured in the course of a baseball game.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cPlaintiff arrived while the game was in progress and elected to view the contest from a position behind the three-foot fence along the third base line, approximately 10 to 15 feet from the end of the backstop and 60 feet from home plate. As there were no seating facilities for spectators along the base lines, plaintiff had to stand in order to watch the game. At the time, other spectators were also standing along the base lines behind the three-foot fence. There was, however, no proof that the screened bleachers behind home plate were filled or that plaintiff was prevented from watching the game from behind the backstop. Approximately 10 minutes after arriving at the baseball field, plaintiff was struck in the eye by a sharply hit foul ball, causing her serious and permanent injury.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cThe present action was then commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant school district. Alleging that the school district was negligent in failing to provide safe and proper screening devices along the base lines of its field, plaintiff sought judgment against the school district in the sum of $250,000. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor, assessing damages in the amount of $100,000 and apportioning fault at 65% to the school district and 35% to plaintiff.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cWe hold that, in the exercise of reasonable care, the proprietor of a ball park need only provide screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest. Moreover, such screening must be of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game. In so holding, we merely recognize the practical realities of this sporting event. As mentioned earlier, many spectators attending such exhibitions desire to watch the contest taking place on the playing field without having their view obstructed or obscured by a [441 N.Y.S.2d 647] fence or a protective net. In ministering to these desires, while at the same time providing adequate protection in the most dangerous area of the field for those spectators who wish to avail themselves of it, a proprietor fulfills its duty of reasonable care under such circumstances.\u201d\r\n\r\nHaymon v. Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc.,<\/em> 9 N.Y.3d 324 (2007)\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/ny-court-of-appeals\/1470297.html<\/a>\r\n\r\n\u201cIn this appeal we are asked to decide whether a baseball park operator owes a duty to warn or protect nonpatron spectators who are injured while chasing foul balls that are hit out of the stadium. \u2002 Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that no duty exists.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cPlaintiff's then 14-year-old son, L.H., was injured when he was struck by an automobile driven by defendant, Donald Pettit. \u2002 Specifically, L.H. chased a foul ball into traffic. \u2002 The record indicates that he was wearing headphones while chasing the ball and failed to look both ways before crossing the street. \u2002 L.H. apparently neither saw nor heard the oncoming vehicle. \u2002 Pettit was operating his vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .11%. At the time, L.H. had congregated with friends outside of Falcon Park, a baseball stadium owned by the City of Auburn and operated by defendant Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc. (Ball Club). \u2002 Adjoining the stadium on the third base side is a two-way public street across from which is a parking lot owned by the City of Auburn and utilized by fans during games. \u2002 At the time of the incident, the Ball Club offered free baseball tickets to nonpatrons outside of the park who retrieved foul balls and returned them to the ticket window. \u2002 Further, the record indicates that L.H. visited the stadium regularly to retrieve and collect foul balls hit out of the stadium.*\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cIn Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531 (1981) we limited the duty of a baseball field owner\/operator to provide screening for errant baseballs around \u201cthe most dangerous section of the field-the area behind home plate-and the screening that is provided must be sufficient for those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on an ordinary occasion\u201d (id. at 330, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531; \u2009see also Davidoff v. Metropolitan Baseball Club, 61 N.Y.2d 996, 997-998, 475 N.Y.S.2d 367, 463 N.E.2d 1219 [1984]\u2009). \u2002 Although in Akins the injury occurred inside the baseball park, it is instructive nonetheless. \u2002 Akins is premised on \u201cthe practical realities\u201d (id. at 331, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531) of the game-namely, that errant balls of any sort are an inherent part of the sport and that a baseball stadium owner\/operator \u201cis not an insurer of the safety of its spectators\u201d and can only be held to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances (id. at 329, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531). \u2002 Even inside the park, screening of the area behind home plate offers the most protection spectators could reasonably expect. \u2002 The nature of the game-and the spectators' involvement in it-is such that absolute protection around the entire stadium would be impractical. \u2002 Any other formulation would defy a reasonable point at which duty can be fixed (see Darby, 96 N.Y.2d at 349-350, 728 N.Y.S.2d 731, 753 N.E.2d 160; \u2009Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 786, 390 N.Y.S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019 [1976]\u2009).\u201d\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

SCOPE OF DUTY\/BASEBALL PARKS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist.<\/em> 53 N.Y.2d 325 (1981)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/h2o.law.harvard.edu\/cases\/2474<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cOn this appeal, we are called upon to define the scope of the duty owed by a [441 N.Y.S.2d 645] proprietor of a baseball field to the spectators attending its games. The specific question presented is whether such an owner, having provided protective screening for the area behind home plate, is liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by a spectator as a result of being struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened section of the field. This case does not involve the “culpable conduct” (CPLR 1411)–be it assumption of risk or contributory negligence–of a spectator injured in the course of a baseball game.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiff arrived while the game was in progress and elected to view the contest from a position behind the three-foot fence along the third base line, approximately 10 to 15 feet from the end of the backstop and 60 feet from home plate. As there were no seating facilities for spectators along the base lines, plaintiff had to stand in order to watch the game. At the time, other spectators were also standing along the base lines behind the three-foot fence. There was, however, no proof that the screened bleachers behind home plate were filled or that plaintiff was prevented from watching the game from behind the backstop. Approximately 10 minutes after arriving at the baseball field, plaintiff was struck in the eye by a sharply hit foul ball, causing her serious and permanent injury.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe present action was then commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant school district. Alleging that the school district was negligent in failing to provide safe and proper screening devices along the base lines of its field, plaintiff sought judgment against the school district in the sum of $250,000. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, assessing damages in the amount of $100,000 and apportioning fault at 65% to the school district and 35% to plaintiff.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe hold that, in the exercise of reasonable care, the proprietor of a ball park need only provide screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest. Moreover, such screening must be of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game. In so holding, we merely recognize the practical realities of this sporting event. As mentioned earlier, many spectators attending such exhibitions desire to watch the contest taking place on the playing field without having their view obstructed or obscured by a [441 N.Y.S.2d 647] fence or a protective net. In ministering to these desires, while at the same time providing adequate protection in the most dangerous area of the field for those spectators who wish to avail themselves of it, a proprietor fulfills its duty of reasonable care under such circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haymon v. Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc.,<\/em> 9 N.Y.3d 324 (2007)<\/p>\n

https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/ny-court-of-appeals\/1470297.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIn this appeal we are asked to decide whether a baseball park operator owes a duty to warn or protect nonpatron spectators who are injured while chasing foul balls that are hit out of the stadium. \u2002 Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that no duty exists.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiff’s then 14-year-old son, L.H., was injured when he was struck by an automobile driven by defendant, Donald Pettit. \u2002 Specifically, L.H. chased a foul ball into traffic. \u2002 The record indicates that he was wearing headphones while chasing the ball and failed to look both ways before crossing the street. \u2002 L.H. apparently neither saw nor heard the oncoming vehicle. \u2002 Pettit was operating his vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .11%. At the time, L.H. had congregated with friends outside of Falcon Park, a baseball stadium owned by the City of Auburn and operated by defendant Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc. (Ball Club). \u2002 Adjoining the stadium on the third base side is a two-way public street across from which is a parking lot owned by the City of Auburn and utilized by fans during games. \u2002 At the time of the incident, the Ball Club offered free baseball tickets to nonpatrons outside of the park who retrieved foul balls and returned them to the ticket window. \u2002 Further, the record indicates that L.H. visited the stadium regularly to retrieve and collect foul balls hit out of the stadium.*\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn Akins v. Glens Falls City School Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531 (1981) we limited the duty of a baseball field owner\/operator to provide screening for errant baseballs around \u201cthe most dangerous section of the field-the area behind home plate-and the screening that is provided must be sufficient for those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on an ordinary occasion\u201d (id. at 330, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531; \u2009see also Davidoff v. Metropolitan Baseball Club, 61 N.Y.2d 996, 997-998, 475 N.Y.S.2d 367, 463 N.E.2d 1219 [1984]\u2009). \u2002 Although in Akins the injury occurred inside the baseball park, it is instructive nonetheless. \u2002 Akins is premised on \u201cthe practical realities\u201d (id. at 331, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531) of the game-namely, that errant balls of any sort are an inherent part of the sport and that a baseball stadium owner\/operator \u201cis not an insurer of the safety of its spectators\u201d and can only be held to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances (id. at 329, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531). \u2002 Even inside the park, screening of the area behind home plate offers the most protection spectators could reasonably expect. \u2002 The nature of the game-and the spectators’ involvement in it-is such that absolute protection around the entire stadium would be impractical. \u2002 Any other formulation would defy a reasonable point at which duty can be fixed (see Darby, 96 N.Y.2d at 349-350, 728 N.Y.S.2d 731, 753 N.E.2d 160; \u2009Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 786, 390 N.Y.S.2d 393, 358 N.E.2d 1019 [1976]\u2009).\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Original<\/div>