Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District · Torts

TortsPrimary assumption of the riskSports spectator injuriesSummary judgmentbaseballfoul ballspectatormascot

Facts

Plaintiff was seated in the left terrace at a Rancho Cucamonga Quakes game when the team mascot, Tremor, stood behind him in the aisle for about two minutes performing antics. During that time, Tremor's tail repeatedly hit plaintiff on the back of the head and shoulders, causing plaintiff to turn and look at the mascot. Just as plaintiff turned his head back toward the field, he was struck in the face by a foul ball and suffered serious injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the mascot's antics, while play was in progress, distracted him and increased the risk beyond those inherent in attending a baseball game.

Issue

Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on primary assumption of the risk grounds where plaintiff alleged that a mascot's distracting antics during live play increased the inherent risk that a spectator would be struck by a foul ball. More specifically, the question was whether defendants showed as a matter of law that the mascot's conduct did not increase inherent baseball spectator risks.

Rule

Under Knight, defendants generally owe no duty to protect spectators from risks inherent in the sport, but they do owe a duty not to increase those inherent risks. In the summary judgment context, a defendant relying on primary assumption of the risk must make a prima facie showing that the challenged conduct did not increase inherent risks; if the defendant's evidence does not do so, the motion must be denied without regard to the plaintiff's opposing evidence.

🔒

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 baseball game in Fresno, Elena Park chose an unscreened seat down the third-base line at Redwood Valley Ball Club's stadium. She watched the game continuously, and a sharply hit foul ball entered the stands and broke her wrist.

If Elena sues the home club for negligence, which is the best result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion recognizes that foul balls are an inherent risk of attending a baseball game because eliminating foul balls would make the game impossible to play. A defendant generally owes no duty to protect spectators from inherent risks, though it must not increase those risks. Here, no distracting or risk-increasing conduct is shown, so the claim is likely barred by primary assumption of the risk. (Derived from Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball (n.d.).)