## Facts

- The Houston Astros donated 250 tickets for a charitable event and selected the seating location for attendees: Section 153, field-level outfield bleachers behind the right-field wall.
- Section 153 was not protected by a screen; the stadium did not post a map or diagram identifying the section as unscreened.
- Minute Maid Park seats about 41,000 spectators; more than 5,000 seats behind home plate were shielded by a protective screen.
- Shirley Martinez arrived early with family members and children while batting practice was underway and began moving toward the seating area.
- An usher stopped Martinez and instructed her that a stroller could not be taken to the seats and must be stored in a designated area.
- Martinez temporarily left the stroller at the top of the aisle, escorted children to the seats, and then began ascending the stairs carrying a young child.
- As she turned to go up the stairs, a batted ball from batting practice struck her in the face.
- Martinez and her husband sued the stadium operator for premises liability and negligence, alleging inadequate screening, failure to warn that Section 153 was unscreened, and that the usher’s instruction distracted her and increased the risk.

## Issues

1. Under Texas law’s “baseball rule,” what duty does a stadium operator owe spectators regarding injuries from batted balls entering the stands, and should that rule be modified due to comparative negligence and the abolition of assumption of risk?
2. Whether the operator breached any duty by not screening Section 153 or by failing to warn that Section 153 was unscreened.
3. Whether the usher’s stroller instruction created an independent basis for liability by distracting Martinez or creating a distinct hazard beyond the ordinary risk of batted balls.
4. Whether plaintiffs could proceed under general negligence, or whether the claims sounded exclusively in premises liability.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the stadium operator on all claims.
- The court held Texas continues to recognize the baseball rule as defining the scope of duty owed to spectators for ball-related injuries.
- The operator satisfied its duty by providing a reasonable number of screened seats behind home plate (the area of greatest danger) and making them available to patrons who request them.
- The operator owed no additional duty to a spectator seated in an unscreened outfield section who did not request screened seating.
- The risk of being struck by a batted ball in the stands, including during batting practice, was open and obvious and did not require special warnings identifying unscreened sections.
- The usher’s stroller instruction did not create a separate duty or transform the injury into a risk outside the baseball rule.
- The negligence theories were treated as premises-liability claims because the injury arose from a condition of the premises, and no fact issue existed on duty or breach.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas baseball-stadium operator’s duty for spectator injuries from batted balls is limited: it must provide adequate screening in the area behind home plate where danger is greatest and offer screened seats to as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to request them.
- The baseball rule functions as a duty limitation; it is not dependent on assumption of risk and is not displaced by comparative negligence.
- A stadium operator is not required to screen all seating areas, including outfield bleachers, if adequate screened seating is provided in the highest-risk area.
- The danger that batted balls may enter the stands is an open and obvious condition inherent in attending a baseball game; absent special circumstances, the operator has no further duty to warn that particular sections are unscreened.
- When an injury arises from a premises condition, plaintiffs may not reframe the case as general negligence to avoid premises-liability standards.
- Routine enforcement of stadium policies that temporarily affect a patron’s attention does not, without more, create a distinct hazard or a separate duty outside premises-liability limits for inherent baseball risks.

## Conclusion

The court applied Texas’s baseball rule to hold that the stadium operator discharged its limited duty by maintaining a reasonable number of screened seats in the area of greatest danger and making them available on request; because the plaintiff sat in an unscreened outfield section without requesting screened seating and the risk of batted balls was open and obvious, the operator had no additional duty to screen or warn, and summary judgment was proper.


Martinez v. Houston McLane Co., 414 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013)