## Facts

- Richard J. Baker attended the 2006 World Baseball Classic Championship tournament at Petco Park Stadium in San Diego, California.
- The tournament was sponsored by Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.; Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc.; San Diego Padres Baseball Club LP; and World Baseball Classic Inc. (collectively referred to as MLB), along with the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) (together, defendants).
- During the event, cars were barred from Petco Park’s parking lots.
- Baker alleged the parking lots were instead used as pedestrian areas containing attractions intended to draw attendees’ attention away from watching for ground-level hazards.
- Baker alleged the lots contained unpainted and unmarked raised curbs and sidewalks, including abrupt changes in elevation.
- Baker also alleged there were no cones, signs, or other warnings near the raised pavement areas.
- Baker claimed he was injured when he fell after unexpectedly encountering a significant drop from the raised pavement on which he had been walking.
- Baker sued MLB and the MLBPA asserting (1) negligence, alleging defendants failed to use reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe place, and (2) a premises-liability theory framed as an “absolute duty” to provide safe premises—i.e., liability even without fault.
- Baker alleged MLB and the MLBPA could be liable because they owned, possessed, or controlled the portion of the Petco Park lot where he fell.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether Baker plausibly alleged that MLB and/or the MLBPA owned, possessed, or controlled the Petco Park parking-lot area where he fell, such that they owed him a duty of reasonable care under California premises-liability (negligence) principles.
2. Whether California law recognizes an “absolute duty” theory of premises liability that would impose liability on defendants even if they were not at fault.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- The court held Baker’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to proceed on a negligence-based theory to the extent he alleged MLB and/or the MLBPA owned, possessed, or controlled the parking-lot area and failed to exercise reasonable care regarding the alleged hazard and lack of warnings.
- The court dismissed Baker’s premises-liability theory to the extent it attempted to impose liability based on an “absolute duty” to provide safe premises without a showing of negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, premises liability is a species of negligence; a plaintiff must allege duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- A duty of reasonable care regarding property conditions may arise from ownership, possession, or control; a defendant need not be the titled owner if it exercises sufficient control over the area or its use.
- California premises-liability doctrine generally does not impose strict or insurer-like liability merely because an injury occurred on the premises; liability turns on unreasonable conduct (fault) measured by reasonable-care standards.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether the complaint plausibly states a claim for relief.

## Conclusion

Baker v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. addresses injuries allegedly caused by unmarked elevation changes in Petco Park parking lots used as pedestrian attraction areas during the 2006 World Baseball Classic; the court allowed a negligence-based premises theory to go forward based on allegations that MLB-related entities and/or the MLBPA owned, possessed, or controlled the area and failed to use reasonable care, but it rejected an “absolute duty” theory seeking liability without fault under California law.


Baker v. Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., 2009 WL 2912491 (2009)