Baseball is back, and so is concern for spectator safety

As sports fans rejoiced the opening day of Major League Baseball, most were not thinking about the risks and potential dangers for spectators of American's favorite pastime. Like many competitive team sports, the outcome of a game can cause either a massive celebration or angry riots when overzealous fans take matters into their own hands. It is not uncommon in our sports-obsessed nation for fans to sometimes take to the streets and start havoc and destroy public property. However, some of the destruction may even take place at the stadium itself after a game. Take, for example, the case of Brian Stow.

In 2011, Brian Stow, an avid San Francisco Giants fan, drove from Northern California with two friends to see his team take on the Dodgers on opening day. As the game ended, Stow and his friends were looking for a taxi when the group was heckled at the cab line in the Dodgers Stadium parking lot. Soon after, Stow was hit on the back of the head and his skull was severely fractured. His attackers then repeatedly kicked him in the head and body as he lay on the ground. The only thing Stow did wrong that night was wear a Giants jersey in a sea of Dodgers fans. Now brain-damaged as a result of the beating, Stow is disabled and unable to care for himself. The two aggressors were ultimately sentenced to prison for a number of years.

Although justice has been served against the aggressors, the question of how this came about is unclear. Does Brian Stow have any recourse against the stadium owner and the teams that were playing for failing to provide security in the parking lot, especially when there would be a huge influx of fans leaving after the game? Under the theory of premises liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff that proximately caused his injuries and damages. Paz v. State of California, 22 Cal. 4th 550, 559 (2000). Those who own, possess or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC, 232 Cal. App. 4th 32 (2014).

"A defendant may owe an affirmative duty to protect another from the conduct of third parties if he or she has a 'special relationship' with the other person." Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal. 4th 224, 235 (2005). "Courts have found such a special relationship in cases involving the relationship between business proprietors ... and their tenants, patrons, or invitees" Ibid. "The duty of a proprietor of a business establishment to business invitees generally includes a 'duty to take affirmative action to control wrongful conduct that threaten invitees where the occupant has reasonable cause to anticipate such acts and the probability of injury therefrom.'" Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819 (1997).

This rule has been shown to apply to a business owner's liability for injuries inflicted by one spectator upon another at a sports event. Sample v. Eaton, 145 Cal. App. 2d 312, 316 (1956). In Sample, the court held that the proprietor of a wrestling club could be liable for personal injuries sustained by a spectator when he was struck by a bottle of Coca-Cola thrown by another spectator. The court reasoned that a business owner "is under a duty to protect his invitees 'by taking appropriate measures to restrain conduct by third persons which he should be aware of and which he should realize is dangerous.'" Id.

Here, Stow was attacked while still on the premises of the Dodgers stadium. Given the volatile nature of sport fans' behaviors, it is reasonably expected that fights could break out and thereby, expose fans to an unreasonable risk of harm. Given that Stow was ticket holder at the game, Dodgers Stadium has a duty to take appropriate measures to ensure their invitees' safety. Dodgers Stadium should have taken preventative measures such as having increased security at the parking lot until all fans have left the premises and installing surveillance cameras to deter violence. Due to the Dodgers Stadium's breach of duty, Stow was placed in a situation that caused him to be susceptible to violence.

Eight years later, Stow told the San Francisco Chronicle that he still remembers opening day in 2011 when he experienced heckling and intimidation by fans near his seat in the third-base coaching box at Dodger Stadium. He recalled the scene as more "hostile and vicious that usual." Fans, no matter which team they root for should never feel threatened to cheer in order to show support for an opposing team and baseball teams should ensure the safety of all ticketholders. Stow's family won its civil lawsuit aimed at holding the Dodgers accountable for insufficient security. He is now working to raise awareness about the dangers of bullying at ballparks. The message should be clear not only to fans but to baseball team owners, spectators' safety is more important than winning the game.