Akins v. Glens Falls City School District

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsPremises LiabilityNegligenceSports Spectator Injuriesbaseball rulespectator injuryfoul ballprotective screening

Facts

Plaintiff attended a high school baseball game on a field owned by defendant school district. The field had a 24-foot-high, 50-foot-wide backstop behind home plate in front of bleachers seating about 120 adults, plus additional standing room, and low chain-link fences extended along the baselines. Plaintiff arrived during the game and chose to stand behind the three-foot fence on the third-base line, about 10 to 15 feet from the end of the backstop and about 60 feet from home plate, even though there was no proof that the screened area behind home plate was full or unavailable. About 10 minutes later, a sharply hit foul ball struck plaintiff in the eye, causing serious permanent injury.

Issue

Whether a baseball field owner that provides protective screening behind home plate may be held liable in negligence to a spectator struck by a foul ball while standing in an unscreened area along the baseline. More specifically, the question is what duty of care a baseball field proprietor owes spectators regarding protective screening.

Rule

A proprietor of a baseball field is not an insurer of spectator safety but must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. That duty is satisfied when the proprietor provides screening for the area behind home plate, where the danger of being struck by a ball is greatest, and the screening is sufficient to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire protected seating during an ordinary game. When that duty is fulfilled, the proprietor cannot be held liable in negligence for injuries to a spectator in an unscreened area.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a summer amateur baseball game in Toledo, Oak Harbor Athletics owns a field with a tall screened section directly behind home plate containing 40 seats. On ordinary game days, about 90 spectators typically seek screened seats, and many are regularly turned away before the first pitch. Elena Morris, unable to find space in the screened area, watches from an unscreened bench near first base and is struck by a foul ball.

If Elena sues Oak Harbor Athletics for negligence, which is the best analysis?

Explanation. The majority rule adopted by the court requires two things: screening in the most dangerous area, behind home plate, and screening of sufficient extent to protect as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire protected seating on an ordinary occasion. Here, the facts suggest ordinary demand for protected seating far exceeds screened capacity, so there is evidence of breach sufficient to avoid dismissal as a matter of law.