## Facts

- Dominica Hering, age 20, attended a night baseball game at Yankee Stadium on June 2, 1983.
- Hering alleged she was assaulted by another spectator, Joseph Arouni, who was allegedly intoxicated.
- The complaint alleged a 10–15 minute altercation involving Arouni and others, during which Hering was thrown down approximately 12 rows, injuring her knee and ankle.
- Yankee Stadium security guards were employed by River Operating Company, Inc., a Yankees subsidiary that operated the stadium.
- River had a collective-bargaining agreement with the Security Officers & Guards Union (the Union).
- Under that agreement, River retained exclusive authority to manage, direct, and supervise the security guards.
- Hering alleged the assailants were drunk and disorderly before the assault and that security did not intervene until she was bleeding and unconscious.
- Hering sued the Yankees, River, and the Union for negligence based on allegedly inadequate security.

## Issues

1. Whether a labor union representing stadium security guards under a collective-bargaining agreement owes a duty of care to a stadium patron injured by an assault by another spectator.
2. Whether the Union’s collective-bargaining role, without operational control over security, can support negligence liability to a member of the public.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed the order denying the Union’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment to the Union and dismissed the complaint against it, without costs.
- The court held the Union owed no duty of care to Hering regarding stadium security because the employer retained exclusive managerial authority over the guards.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a duty running from the defendant to the injured plaintiff; duty is a question of law for the court.
- A labor union’s status as collective-bargaining representative, standing alone, does not create a tort duty to protect members of the public from harm occurring at the employer’s premises.
- Control over the relevant operations is central to duty; where the employer retains exclusive authority to manage, direct, and supervise employees, a union generally lacks the operational control needed to owe a duty to third parties.
- A duty to third parties may arise from an assumed or voluntary undertaking to provide protective services, but no such undertaking exists absent proof the union actually directed or provided the protection at issue.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the negligence claim against the Union because the collective-bargaining relationship did not establish any duty of care to a stadium patron, and the employer’s exclusive control over guard supervision foreclosed union liability for alleged security failures.


Hering v. N.Y. Yankees, 166 A.D.2d 253, 560 N.Y.S.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1990)