Facts
- Jane Costa attended a Boston Red Sox game at Fenway Park in September 1998 and arrived around the top of the fifth inning.
- She sat in an unscreened upper box seat along the first-base line, generally behind the Red Sox dugout.
- A batter hit a line-drive foul ball into the stands along the first-base line; the ball struck Costa in the face, causing severe, permanent injuries.
- Evidence showed foul-ball injuries occurred regularly at Fenway Park, with annual injury totals in the 1990s ranging from 36 to 53, many requiring medical attention.
- Costa’s expert estimated her seat was about 141 feet from home plate and the ball’s speed at impact was at least 90 mph, leaving virtually no time to react.
- Costa alleged she was unaware of the specific risk posed by sitting in an unscreened area and claimed the club failed to provide adequate warnings.
Issues
- Whether the operator of a baseball stadium owes spectators a duty to warn of the danger of being struck by foul balls.
- Whether the risk of foul balls entering the stands is so open and obvious that, as a matter of law, no duty to warn arises on a negligent-failure-to-warn theory.
Decision
- The Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for the Boston Red Sox Baseball Club.
- The court held the club owed no duty to warn Costa of the danger of being hit by a foul ball because the danger is sufficiently open and obvious as a matter of law.
- The court rejected the argument that the frequency or severity of prior foul-ball injuries created a duty to provide additional warnings.
- Because Costa advanced only a negligent-failure-to-warn theory, the claim failed once the court found no duty to warn.
Legal Principles
- A landowner is not liable for failing to warn of dangers that would be obvious to a person of average intelligence.
- For risks inherent in and widely known to be associated with an activity (such as foul balls at baseball games), a proprietor generally has no duty to warn when the risk is open and obvious.
- Evidence showing that an injury may be difficult to avoid, or that similar injuries have occurred, does not by itself transform an open and obvious risk into a non-obvious hazard for duty-to-warn purposes.
- When a plaintiff limits the case to failure to warn, courts may resolve liability at the duty stage without reaching broader questions about design choices or protective measures.
Conclusion
The court held that being struck by a foul ball is a well-known, open and obvious risk of attending a baseball game, so the stadium operator had no duty to warn; summary judgment for the Boston Red Sox Baseball Club was properly affirmed on the plaintiff’s sole failure-to-warn theory.