Davidoff v. Metro Baseball Club, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

Tortspremises liabilitysports spectator injuriesnegligencefoul ballbaseball rulespectator injuryscreening

Facts

Plaintiff, a 14-year-old girl, was watching a professional baseball game at Shea Stadium from a box seat behind first base, separated from the field only by a three-foot fence. While her attention was diverted from the game, she was struck by a sharply hit foul ball and suffered serious injuries, including loss of vision in one eye. She sued the City of New York, the stadium owner, and Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc., its lessee, for negligence. The record showed no evidence that the screen behind home plate was inadequate, and it was undisputed that there were unoccupied seats behind that screen on the day of the injury.

Issue

Whether a baseball stadium proprietor may be liable in negligence to a spectator injured by a foul ball while seated in an unscreened assigned seat behind first base, despite adequate screening behind home plate and sufficient protected seating there. More specifically, the question was whether the adequacy inquiry extends to the point of injury outside the behind-home-plate area.

Rule

A proprietor of a ball park fulfills its duty of care, and cannot be liable in negligence, when it furnishes 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 such seating in the course of an ordinary game. A jury question arises only when the adequacy of screening in terms of protecting the area behind home plate is properly put in issue.

🔒

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 professional baseball game in Cleveland, Nora Patel bought an unscreened seat along the third-base line and was hit by a foul ball. Discovery showed that the stadium's screen behind home plate was structurally sound, but that the protected section had only 40 seats even though ordinary attendance records showed about 120 spectators typically sought screened seating at comparable games.

If Nora sues the stadium operator for negligence, which is the best assessment of the operator's motion for summary judgment?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a ballpark proprietor fulfills its duty only if it provides screening behind home plate, where the danger is greatest, and enough protected seating there for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game. Evidence that the protected section was too small creates a triable issue. The rule does not require screening every seat, nor does it turn on the exact seat of injury. (Derived from Davidoff v. Metro Baseball Club, Inc. (n.d.).)