Let’s see if we can put this matter to rest for the time being.

 

The standard established by precedent for determining if an organization or individual is liable for injury caused to a spectator is whether the injury was caused by risks which are “common, frequent, and expected� parts of the game of baseball.[1] If injury results from a risk which is a “common, frequent, and expected� aspect of watching a game at a major league ballpark, there is no liability and the plaintiff cannot recover.

 

Now, is a player throwing a souvenir ball into the stands a “common, frequent, and expected� part of the game? Reasonable people can differ on the question. It is my considered opinion that, should this case make it to jury, that the panel would indeed find that a player throwing a souvenir ball into the stands is a “common, frequent, and expected� part of the game and that Mr. Badilla would not prevail. However, we shall have to wait for the results of the case for a determinate answer to that question

 

On another related note, it is discouraging that our legal schools are producing such minds (e.g., Donald Norton) as would think this case has any tort viability.

 

________________________________________________

 

[1] See, for example, Ratcliff v. San Diego Baseball Club, 27 Cal.App.2d 733, 81 P.2d 625, Murray v. Pittsburgh Athletic Co., 324 Pa. 486, 188 A. 190, Martin v. Angel City Baseball Assn., 3 Cal.App.2d 586, 40 P.2d 287, Louisville Baseball Club v. Butler, 298 Ky. 785, 160 S.W.2d 141. Of particular interest is Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club, 99 Cal.App.2d 484, 222 P.2d 19. In this case, a woman was hit by a ball thrown between innings (possibly as a souvenir) when she diverted her attention away from the field. Because she had momentarily turned away from the field, she was uncertain whether the ball was intentionally or accidentally thrown. The Court found that it did not matter, that a ball entering the stands is a "common, frequent, and expected" risk of watching baseball and that she had the duty to remain alert. Her plea was rejected and the ruling upheld on appeal.

I agree that whoever is sueing is just a flat-out a**hole, excuse the language...if he was at a marlins game, it is proboble that he was a marlins fan(not for sure, just highly likely). if he is a fan, he would not sue one of the best players on the team for being nice and giving a souvenier to a fan..