Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.

California Court of Appeal · Torts

TortsAssumption of RiskCausationSummary JudgmentSports Injurybaseballaluminum batincreased risk

Facts

Sanchez, a college pitcher for CSUN, was struck in the head by a line drive hit by USC batter Dominic Correa using H&B's Air Attack 2 aluminum bat, suffering serious head injuries. Sanchez alleged the bat's design significantly increased the inherent risk that a pitcher would be hit by a line drive because it increased the speed at which the ball left the bat. In opposition to summary judgment, Sanchez submitted evidence that the Air Attack 2 was designed to produce higher ball speeds, that its designer believed it substantially increased the risk to pitchers, that NCAA and Pac-10 had expressed safety concerns about newer aluminum bats, and that expert James Kent opined the ball traveled fast enough to leave Sanchez less than the accepted minimum reaction time. Sanchez had signed a sports injury disclaimer and knew pitchers face a risk of being hit by line drives.

Issue

Whether defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Sanchez's claims were barred by primary assumption of risk or because he could not establish causation. Also, whether NCAA's evidentiary submissions were properly excluded and whether judgment on the pleadings for NCAA could stand.

Rule

In sports cases, a defendant owes no duty to protect a participant from risks inherent in the sport, but does owe a duty not to increase the risk of harm above that inherent in the sport. A risk is inherent if eliminating it would chill vigorous participation and alter the sport's fundamental nature. If the defendant's conduct increased the risk beyond the inherent level, primary assumption of risk does not apply and comparative fault becomes a factual issue under secondary assumption of risk. On summary judgment, expert opinion is sufficient if it identifies the matters relied on, shows they are of a type reasonably relied on, and states the bases for the opinion; causation presents a triable issue when the evidence permits a reasonable inference that the challenged conduct was a substantial cause of the injury.

🔒

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 college softball game in Phoenix, pitcher Lena Ortiz is struck by a line drive off a newly marketed composite bat used by Desert Valley University under an exclusive sponsorship deal with Mesa Forge Sports. Lena sues the manufacturer and the university, offering declarations from the bat’s designer and a biomechanics expert that this model was built to increase exit velocity beyond prior bats and materially reduced pitcher reaction time below accepted safety benchmarks.

On the defendants’ summary judgment motion, they argue that being hit by a batted ball is an inherent risk of softball, so Lena’s claims are barred by primary assumption of risk. What is the best response?

Explanation. The majority held that participants assume inherent risks of the sport, but defendants still owe a duty not to increase those risks above the inherent level. Evidence that a particular item of sports equipment substantially increased exit speed and reduced reaction time was enough to create a triable issue, defeating summary judgment based on primary assumption of risk. Compliance with existing rules is not dispositive, and the doctrine does not automatically bar only some defendants. (Derived from Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (n.d.).)