Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC

Idaho Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligencePremises LiabilityAssumption of Riskbaseball rulefoul ball injuriesstadium operator dutyordinary care

Facts

Rountree, a Boise Hawks season ticket holder for over 20 years, attended a game with family at Memorial Stadium, which had extensive protective netting in many areas. After leaving his protected seats and eating in the netted Hawks Nest, he went to the Executive Club, an area covered by horizontal but not vertical netting, where he stopped watching the game while talking to someone. About ten minutes later he turned back after hearing the crowd roar and was struck in the eye by a foul ball, losing the eye. The Executive Club entrance had no warning signs, though the back of his ticket stated that the holder assumed risks incidental to baseball, including injury from thrown or batted balls.

Issue

Should Idaho adopt the Baseball Rule limiting the duty owed by baseball stadium owners and operators to spectators injured by foul balls? Also, is primary implied assumption of the risk a valid defense in Idaho after Salinas and Winn?

Rule

Idaho does not adopt the Baseball Rule; absent legislative action, baseball stadium owners and operators remain subject to the general duty applicable to business owners to exercise ordinary care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm to others. In Idaho, assumption of the risk has no legal effect as a defense except in instances of express written or oral consent, and that rule applies to both primary and secondary assumption of the risk.

🔒

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.

During a summer collegiate baseball game in Idaho Falls, Lena Ortiz left her ticketed seat and stood in an uncovered picnic deck run by Snake River Diamond Events, LLC. While looking down at her phone, she was hit by a foul ball. The operator moves for summary judgment, arguing it satisfied its legal duty because it maintained ample screened seats behind home plate.

How should an Idaho court most likely rule on the operator's duty argument?

Explanation. The majority held Idaho declines to adopt the Baseball Rule. Stadium owners and operators therefore remain subject to the general duty applicable to business owners: ordinary care to prevent unreasonable, foreseeable risks of harm. The mere existence of screened seats elsewhere does not categorically eliminate duty.