## Facts

- Andrew Sanchez, a CSUN college pitcher, was struck in the head by a line drive during a game against USC and suffered serious injuries.
- The batter used an Hillerich & Bradsby aluminum bat (“Air Attack 2”) that incorporated a pressurized air bladder.
- Sanchez alleged the bat’s design substantially increased ball exit velocity and, as a result, increased the danger to pitchers beyond ordinary baseball risks.
- USC competed in the Pac-10; the Pac-10 and CSUN were NCAA members, and the NCAA set equipment rules, including bat specifications.
- Sanchez sued the bat manufacturer (H&B), USC, the Pac-10, and the NCAA, alleging negligence and related theories based on the bat’s design and defendants’ alleged failure to restrict its use.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting primary assumption of risk (no duty) and lack of causation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, reasoning Sanchez could not prove the bat’s alleged performance characteristics caused his injury.
- Sanchez and the NCAA appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether primary assumption of risk eliminated defendants’ duty because being hit by a line drive is an inherent risk of baseball.
2. Whether defendants nevertheless owed a duty not to increase inherent baseball risks by designing, authorizing, or permitting use of a bat alleged to produce substantially higher exit velocities.
3. Whether Sanchez presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue that the bat’s design caused or materially contributed to his injury, precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held primary assumption of risk did not entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law because Sanchez produced evidence supporting a theory that defendants increased risks beyond those inherent in baseball.
- The court held Sanchez presented sufficient expert and circumstantial evidence to create a triable issue that the bat’s unique design properties increased ball speed and contributed to the injury.
- Causation was for the trier of fact on the record presented and could not be resolved on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s primary assumption of risk doctrine, defendants generally owe no duty to protect sports participants from risks inherent in the sport.
- The doctrine does not bar claims predicated on a defendant’s conduct or product that unreasonably increases risks beyond those inherent in the sport.
- A manufacturer, team/institutional actor, conference, or governing body may face liability if its conduct in designing, permitting, or regulating equipment increases the sport’s inherent dangers.
- On summary judgment, if the plaintiff produces evidence from which a reasonable jury could find (1) increased inherent risk from the challenged equipment or conduct and (2) a causal connection to the injury, the case must proceed to trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence the Air Attack 2 bat may have increased the danger to pitchers beyond ordinary baseball risks, and may have caused Sanchez’s injury, created triable issues of duty and causation; summary judgment for the manufacturer and associated institutional and governing defendants was reversed.


Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 104 Cal. App. 4th 703, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)