Practice Areas

News

Library

Other Links:

Brent Adams & Associates Blog

Brent Adams & Associates Blog

Blog Category: All CategoriesAccident AttorneyDisability Insurance - ERISA AttorneyDog Bite AttorneyMedical Malpractice, Hospital Malpractice, Professional NegligenceNorth Carolina Workers' CompensationNursing Home NeglectSocial Security DisabilityGeneral

Accident Attorney

4/28/2008
Brent Adams
Comments (0)
Ball Park Has No Duty To Protect Against Foul Balls
The state Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that baseball team owners only have a limited duty to protect spectators. The court rejected the appeal of Kathleen Turner, who received personal injuries in May of 2002 after being hit by a foul ball at a Las Vegas 51s baseball game.
Turner and her husband filed suit against Mandalay Sports Entertainment, the owners of the 51s at the time, after the ball hit her in the face and knocked her unconscious, broke her nose, and left her with cuts on her face. The suit alleged negligence, loss of consortium, and emotional distress.
On May 4, 2002, the Turners, who had season tickets, left their assigned seats to go to the Beer Garden, which is several hundred feet from the playing field. Turner was eating a sandwich at a table and unable to see any part of the field when the ball hit her.
The court ruled that a proprietor has a general duty for reasonable care to keep the premises safe. The court said that in the case of ballparks, only the most dangerous parts of the stadium, such as behind home plate, need to have sufficient protective seating and protections for spectators. The Court went on to write that a stadium operator “simply has no remaining duty to protect spectators from foul balls, which are a known, obvious and unavoidable part of all baseball games,” the court’s decision said.
Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, who wrote the dissent, concluded that “the 51s had a general duty to protect Mrs. Turner from injury in the Beer Garden. Whether the 51s breached that duty by failing to provide a protective screen or barrier is a question of fact for the jury.”
Read More about "Ball Park Has No Duty To Protect Against Foul Balls"


Labels:Ball ParkFoul Ballsstadium ownerSupreme Court of Nevada

Comments

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "Ball Park Has No Duty To Protect Against Foul Balls"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", enter your username and password, and hit "Post Message."

Username:

Password:

Register for an account

Message:

North Carolina's Essential
Guide to Accident Cases

Ten Costly Mistakes
That Can Wreck Your
North Carolina Case

Get my FREE Book NOW!

How to Get Top Dollar$
for Your Workers' Compensation Claim

If You Have A Workers' Compensation Claim, You Can Learn How To Deal With Your Employer's Insurance Company.

Get my FREE Book NOW!

Quick Contact

FAQs