Foul Ball Liability A Legal Error?
The Iowa Supreme Court has announced that it will release its decision tomorrow in a case where a high school baseball player was awarded more than $1 million in damages for injuries sustained when struck in the dugout by a foul ball.
Quad-City Times reported on the jury verdict and the oral argument in the appeal.
…the seven justices peppered attorney Thomas M. Boes, the school’s attorney, and Ludman’s attorney Steven J. Crowley, with questions.
While they touched on all issues of Assumption’s appeal, many of their questions focused on whether the school had the responsibility to protect Ludman from the inherent risks of playing baseball and how past case law applied to the school’s defense.
Justice Brent R. Appel, of Ackworth, cited Cleveland Indians pitcher Herb Score’s injury in a 1957 game against the New York Yankees to challenge Boes’ contention that limited duty, or the theory that people who knowingly participate in a potentially dangerous sport can’t sue the sponsors of the event if they are injured.
“That injury to Herb Score was an inherent part of the game. They were playing the game, Score was throwing as fast as he could, as he was supposed to, and (batter) Gil MacDougald hit it as hard as he could,” he said. “So those inherent risks might not be subject to recovery of this court, but this isn’t inherent risk because Davenport Assumption had a decision to make, had a choice and that included how much fencing to put up.
Both attorneys had a 15-minute argument before the court. Boes had another five minutes to answer addition questions after Ludman’s attorney made his case to the court
From the amicus brief of the Iowa High School Athletic Association
In this case, 18-year-old Spencer Ludman positioned himself in the opening of the team’s dugout while his teammate was at bat. That teammate fouled a pitch down the first-base side and into the dugout opening where Ludman stood. Ludman was injured and is now suing Davenport Assumption (the host school) for negligence. He claims that dugouts should have no openings to the field. The jury found in Ludman’s favor, but the main question on appeal is whether this case should have gone to the jury at all…
So the rule is clear, and has been clear for some time: A school is not under a duty to protect players from foul balls, and (stated another way, but to the same end), a school does not act unreasonable—as a matter of law—if a baseball dugout is not screened or fenced. That type of clarity is a rare thing in tort cases. Usually, the common law works in broad strokes, creating rules that must be further applied by a jury on a case-by-case basis. But in this instance, the Court has spoken as a matter of law. No lawyer—and certainly no lay person—could read this Court’s cases any other way.
That’s what makes the district court’s decision so concerning. If a rule, like the Dudley foul-ball rule, can be so easily ignored, then what rules can schools rely on? Precedent, it seems, would be worth very little—if anything at all.
It was therefore an error for the district court to send this case to the jury. And it is an error that, if not firmly and succinctly reversed by this Court, could have broad implications for Iowa high school baseball and Iowa sports in general. The IHSAA therefore respectfully requests that this Court reaffirm the foul-ball rule and reverse the judgment.
An error leading to an unearned judgment?
The Iowa Association for Justice filed an amicus in support of the injured student.
the rule urged by the Defendant and the Iowa High School Athletic Association is bad policy. The Defendant and the Association argue that the rule should be that high schools should have no responsibility for injuries that occur to high school athletes unless the schools affirmatively do an act to increase the risk or create a new risk. Such a rule gives immunity to high schools that take no affirmative action to control risks thus effectively disincentivizing action. It rewards high schools that do nothing. In an age of escalating education budget cuts, compromising the safety of athletes is not a public policy direction this Court should encourage. Administrators and those who design, manage, and maintain these athletic facilities should always be encouraged to keep an eye toward maximizing safety.
(Mike Frisch)