## Facts

- The City owned and operated a public baseball field at Mullins Park used for Little League games.
- The field’s protective fencing was eight feet high behind home plate but four feet high along other areas, including near the players’ bench where spectators stood.
- Helene Rippe stood behind the four-foot fence near the bench while watching her son’s game.
- A foul ball cleared the four-foot fence, struck Helene in the head, and rendered her unconscious.
- The Rippes sued for negligence, alleging the City failed to provide adequate spectator protection and that the four-foot fence created a dangerous condition.
- A City recreation manager testified that spectators behind the eight-foot fence were safe from foul balls, while those behind the four-foot fence assumed some risk and had to pay attention.
- A jury found Helene 60% comparatively negligent and the City 40% negligent, awarding \$130,000; judgment was entered on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a jury finding that the City knew or should have known the four-foot fence created a dangerous spectator area and negligently failed to correct the condition or warn, making denial of a directed verdict proper.
2. Whether the claim was barred by sovereign immunity because fence height/design was a discretionary planning decision, rather than an operational function.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for the Rippes.
- The trial court properly denied the City’s directed-verdict motions because the evidence supported a jury finding of negligence and knowledge of the hazard.
- Sovereign immunity did not apply because the alleged negligence concerned operational-level premises safety and maintenance, not protected planning-level policy decisions.

## Legal Principles

- A governmental entity operating a recreational facility owes invitees a duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of or correct dangers it knows or should know about.
- Proof of prior similar injuries is not required to establish a duty to warn or correct a dangerous condition.
- The inherent or “open and obvious” risk of foul balls does not eliminate a landowner’s duty of reasonable care when the landowner undertakes protective measures that may be inadequate.
- In Florida, sovereign immunity bars tort claims based on planning-level (discretionary) policy decisions, but not claims based on operational-level implementation, maintenance, and day-to-day safety of an existing facility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s verdict, concluding the evidence supported a finding that the City had knowledge of increased risk to spectators behind a low fence and failed to take reasonable protective or warning measures, and that the claim sounded in operational negligence not shielded by sovereign immunity.


City of Coral Springs v. Rippe, 743 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)