‘Baseball rule’ is in its 9th inning

It's the bottom of the 9th inning, and the count is 0-2. No, we're not talking about any of the Major League Baseball games currently being played in spring training in Arizona or Florida. We're talking about the antiquated, 100-year-old-"baseball rule." Practitioners who are familiar with the onerous rule that has barred injured plaintiffs from recovering for their foul ball injuries suffered at baseball games might have hope with last week's Court of Appeal decision in Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation, 2020 DJDAR 1295 (Feb. 18, 2020).

Summer, a minor, attended the US Baseball national team's game on Aug. 17, 2014. The game was played at Blair Field on the campus of California State University Long Beach. A foul ball rocketed into the stands and struck Summer in the face. She suffered grievous injuries including damage to her optic nerve. She sued multiple parties, including the United States Baseball Federation, alleging that the stadium and US Baseball provided inadequate netting to protect fans from speeding foul balls. US Baseball demurred, arguing that the "baseball rule" barred her recovery. The rule essentially says that baseball fans assume the risk of suffering foul ball injuries. Every person who enters a major league ballpark will find a reminder of this doctrine printed on the back of his or her admission ticket.

US Baseball's argument held persuasive weight in most courts that have dealt with this issue in the past century. That's why it was so surprising when the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's granting of the demurrer and remanded the case, granting Summer leave to amend and file a second amended complaint. The court provided a lengthy analysis how professional baseball games are full of distractions for fans attending games. Wi-Fi is now provided in all stadiums, encouraging the use of mobile devices. Music is blaring and the jumbotron flashes entertaining images at a near-constant pace. It is hard to take seriously the argument that fans are expected to be alert at all times to foul balls careening into the stands at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.

The court also pointed out that starting with this season, all 30 MLB teams have agreed to extend protective netting down the third-base line, past the dugout. Extending the netting has always been a controversial suggestion. Thirty-four years ago, the Court of Appeal in Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, 185 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1986), warned that requiring teams to extend the netting could seriously alter the viewing experience and thus, the very nature of the institution of baseball. There, the court declined to require Major League Baseball to comply. Here, in Summer J. the court noted that none of the doom and gloom the Neinstein court forewarned about stopped Commissioner Rob Manfred from instituting this important safety upgrade starting with this season.

Does this mean the baseball rule is gone completely? No. But courts now at least seem to be looking at factors beyond the bright-line rule that barred plaintiffs from having their day in court for the past 100 plus years. Of course, Summer will have to prove liability on remand, and it's very well possible there is no liability in her case. But at least now she can have her day in court.

Every season there are news reports of fans suffering serious injuries at Major League Baseball games. Some will remember how Linda Goldbloom died at Dodger Stadium in 2018 after a foul ball crashed into her head. Yes, that's an extreme case, but according to Bloomberg, over 1,700 fans are injured every season by foul balls or splintering bats. Major League Baseball seems to be stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for fan safety. As we learned in Summer J. v. United States Baseball Federation, California courts might not be far behind. 