Injury In Idaho

Baseball Lawsuit Gets to First Base

The Idaho Supreme refused to narrow the scope of a personal injury lawsuit brought a spectator injured at a Boise Hawks baseball game. Plaintiff Bud Rountree had been a Boise Hawks season ticket holder for over 20 years. On August 13, 2008, he took his wife and two grandchildren to a Boise Hawks game at Memorial Stadium in Garden City. The stadium has extensive mesh netting to protect spectators from errant foul balls. Specifically, most portions of the stadium are protected by vertical mesh netting approximately 30 feet high, and several areas are protected from above by horizontal netting. Rountree’s tickets were in the “Viper” section, which is protected by netting. The stadium also has an area known as the “Hawks Nest,” which is a dining area along the third base line covered by both vertical and horizontal netting. Adjacent to the Hawks Nest, at the “very end of the third base line,” is the “Executive Club.” The Executive Club, while covered by horizontal netting, is one of the only areas in the whole stadium not covered by vertical netting.At some point during the game, Rountree and his family went to the Hawks Nest to eat. After eating, they went to the Executive Club. While in the Executive Club, Rountree started talking to someone and stopped paying attention to the game. Approximately ten minutes later, Rountree heard the roar of the crowd and turned his head back to the game. He was struck by a foul ball and, as a result, lost his eye.

The entrance to the Executive Club has no warning signs regarding the dangers of being hit by foul balls. However, the back of Rountree’s ticket stated that, “THE HOLDER ASSUMES ALL RISK AND DANGERS INCIDENTAL TO THE GAME OF BASEBALL INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY (BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY) THE DANGER OF BEING INJURED BY THROWN OR BATTED BALLS.” Rountree asserted he never read the back of his ticket prior to the injury.

The stadium owner asked the Supreme Court to adopt the so-called “Baseball Rule” recognized by the courts of many states. The majority rule that has emerged from these various cases is that “an owner of a baseball stadium has a duty to screen the most dangerous part of the stadium and to provide screened seats to as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to request them on an ordinary occasion.”

The Supreme Court stated that the precise duty owed by stadium owners and operators to spectators struck by foul balls had never previously been decided by the courts of Idaho. The Court noted that a majority of jurisdictions to consider the issue have limited this duty by adopting some variation of the Baseball Rule. Though many variations exist, the most common formulation of the Baseball Rule is that stadium owners and operators must provide screened seats for as many as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion. The rationale behind this rule is put bluntly by the opinion of one Ohio Court: “it is common knowledge that in baseball games hard balls are thrown and batted with great swiftness” and “they are liable to be thrown or batted outside the lines of the diamond.” That Court therefore concluded that “due care on the part on the management does not require all of the spectators to be screened in; that the management performs its duty toward the spectators when it provides screened seats in the grand stand and gives spectators the opportunity of occupying them.”

Nevertheless, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the Baseball Rule would not be imposed in Idaho by court decree.  Instead, it will be up to the Idaho legislature to decide whether existing negligence law should be changed as applied to baseball games.  Therefore Plaintiff Roundtree will be allowed to proceed to trial under the normal and customary laws of negligence.

Scroll to Top