John Lowe Case Study

John Lowe v. California League Of Professional Baseball et al.
65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105(Cal.1997)

Facts
Plaintiff John Lowe attended a Quakes’ home game in California and his seat was along the left field foul line. During the game, the team mascot was playing his antics behind plaintiff and had been touching plaintiff with his tail. Plaintiff was therefore distracted and turned around toward the mascot. After that, plaintiff returned his focus on the game but got hit by a foul ball. Plaintiff heavily injured because of the foul ball and then brought a suit against the defendant California baseball league. The trail court granted the defendant summary judgement. Plaintiff then appealed the decision.

Issue
Was the trial court wrong to grant the
defendant summary judgment? Does the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk apply to this case?

Rule
In this case, whether the trial court wrong or not depends on whether the defendant baseball league breach his duty to the plaintiff.
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is when the plaintiff has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in an inherently dangerous activity like sports and the defendant owes the plaintiff no legal duty to protect against those inherent risk that caused his or her injury.

Analysis
In this case, although the foul ball is an inherent risk in a baseball game, the trial court was improper to grant the defendant summary judgment under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk because the defendant league did breach his duty to not increase the inherent risk to those spectators. The distraction by the mascot was a reason that plaintiff got hit by the foul ball. As a matter of law, the antics of a mascot were not an essential part of the baseball game. So the distraction by the mascot could be viewed as a breach of the duty to not to increase the inherent risk.

Conclusion
The appellate reversed and remanded the decision of the trial court which granted the defendant summary judgment.

Shirley Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc.
229 Cal. Rptr. 612(Cal.1986)

Facts
Plaintiff Shirley Neinstein attended a baseball game at Dodger Stadium. She was sitting on a seat behind the first base side in an unscreened area. During the game, she was hit by a batted ball. Her mouth got injured and she subsequently brought a suit against defendant team Dodgers. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff then appealed.

Issue
Was the trial court wrong to grant the defendant summary judgment? Does the doctrine of primary assumption of risk apply to this case?

Rule
In this case, whether the trial court wrong or not depends on whether the defendant was negligent to protect the plaintiff against the accident caused her injury, in other words, whether the defendant owed a duty to plaintiff’s injury.
The doctrine of primary assumption of risk is when the plaintiff has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in an inherently risky activity like sports and the defendant owes the plaintiff no legal duty to protect against those inherent risk that caused his or her injury. Analysis
In this case, one of the inherent risks assumed by viewers of attending a baseball game is being hit by a foul ball or batted ball.
Plaintiff and her husband had occupied the identical seats before, so plaintiff was supposed to know the risk of sitting an unprotected area and she didn’t require a protected area even though there was a struck warning on the back of her ticket. So the court concluded that she voluntarily sat in an unprotected area and she was sufficiently warned of the risk by her knowledge of attending a baseball game and the ticket. Therefore, plaintiff assumed the risk before she sat in her preferred seat and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied in this case. The defendant did not breach his duty to warn or protect
plaintiff. Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the judgment made by the trial court which was in favor of the defendant.

Holly Ann Nemarnik v. The Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P., et al.
Cal. Rptr. 2d 10(2001)
Facts
Plaintiff Holly Ann Nemarnik attended a Kings hockey game at the Forum.
Plaintiff had a season ticket seat which was in the fourth row. During the pregame warm-ups, there were several punks being used on the ice and there was a crowd around the plaintiff which blocked plaintiff’s eyes to see the ice court. Plaintiff tried to move to find a clear view but she failed. A punk flew off the ice and plaintiff’s mouth and face got hit because she could not see the ice and therefore she was not able to evade. Plaintiff got severe injuries because of the flying punk and brought a suit against the defendant Los Angeles Kings hockey club. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff then appealed. Issue
Was the trial court wrong to grant the defendant summary judgment? Does the doctrine of primary assumption of risk apply to this case?

Rule
Whether the trial court wrong or not depends on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff’s injuries or breathed his duty to not to increase the inherent risk of the game.
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is when the plaintiff has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in an inherently risky activity like sports and the defendant owes the plaintiff no legal duty to protect against those inherent risk that caused his or her
injury. Analysis
In this case, the defendant owed no duty to eliminate the inherent risk of the flying punks to the spectators. Also, other spectators standing around the plaintiff was an unavoidable part of a sporting game. Although the plaintiff claimed that the poor crowd control by the defendant increased the risk of the flying hunk, she failed to prove that she could have evaded the punk if she had a clear look and no court imposed a legal duty on an athletic team, sports league, or sports arena to prevent a large crowd of spectators before the game or during the warm-ups. So the appellate court concluded this case was not about whether the defendant owed a duty to give the plaintiff a better crowd control, but whether the defendant owed a duty to eliminate the inherent risk of flying hunks. So under the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk, the defendant was immune.

Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the trail court’s motion to grant the defendant summary judgement.