Facts
- Robin Akins attended a high-school baseball game on a field owned and maintained by the Glens Falls City School District.
- The field had a backstop about 24 feet high and 50 feet wide, located roughly 60 feet behind home plate, in front of bleachers seating about 120 adults; spectators could also stand behind the backstop.
- Low chain-link fences (about three feet high) extended from the backstop along each baseline to roughly 60 feet behind first and third base.
- Akins arrived after the game began and stood in an unscreened area along the third-base line, about 10–15 feet from the end of the backstop and about 60 feet from home plate, because there were no seats along the baselines.
- There was no proof that the screened bleachers behind home plate were full or that Akins could not watch from behind the backstop.
- About ten minutes after arriving, Akins was struck in the eye by a sharply hit foul ball, causing serious permanent injury.
- Akins sued, alleging negligent failure to provide adequate screening along the baselines.
- A jury found for Akins, awarded $100,000, and apportioned fault 65% to the school district and 35% to Akins; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
- What duty of care does a baseball-field proprietor owe spectators regarding protection from foul balls?
- Whether providing screened seating behind home plate, without additional baseline screening, satisfies reasonable care as a matter of law.
- Whether a spectator injured by a foul ball in an unscreened area may recover when protected seating was available.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held the school district discharged its duty by providing screened seating behind home plate and sufficient screened seats for the number of spectators who could reasonably be expected to want protection on an ordinary occasion.
- Because there was no proof that screened seats were unavailable to Akins, the district was not liable for injuries suffered in an unscreened area.
- The court concluded the trial court erred by allowing the jury to apply a broader, general duty standard rather than the limited duty applicable to baseball spectators.
Legal Principles
- A baseball-field proprietor’s duty is limited: it need not screen the entire field or all spectator areas.
- Reasonable care is satisfied by (1) screening the area behind home plate, where foul-ball risk is greatest, and (2) providing a sufficient number of protected seats to meet ordinary, reasonably anticipated demand.
- When adequate protected seating is provided and reasonably available, the proprietor has no further duty to protect spectators who choose to watch from unscreened areas against the ordinary risk of foul balls.
Conclusion
The court held that the school district met its duty of reasonable care by providing adequate screened seating behind home plate and was not negligent for a foul-ball injury to a spectator standing in an unscreened area when protected seating was available.