THAT TIME OF YEAR, PART I
The Red Sox have already beaten the Yankees soundly, held first place for a while, and then fallen back into second place with a stunning series of losses to inferior teams. (Yankees fans are already getting cocky. See this fine piece of vintage Yankee-ness from the Staten Island Advance, "Red Sox on Edge of Disappearing Act.") Yep, that's right, it's that time of year again.
I'm reminded of that fact today by an opinion issued by Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Jane Costa v. The Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, No. 02-P-1433. (Available for free through this page; click on "Slip opinions" and then find the case by title.) In 1998, Jane Costa was hit by a Darren Lewis foul ball while she sitting behind the dugout on the first base line. In an opinion written by justice Cohen, the Appeals Court rejected Costa's arguments that the club had not sufficiently discharged its duty to warn spectators of the dangers of foul balls:
Viewing the present case through the lens of the defendant's duty, we are persuaded that the potential for a foul ball to enter the stands and injure a spectator who is seated in an unscreened area is, as matter of law, sufficiently obvious that the defendant reasonably could conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive the risk and need no additional warning. Even someone of limited personal experience with the sport of baseball reasonably may be assumed to know that a central feature of the game is that batters will forcefully hit balls that may go astray from their intended direction. We therefore hold that the defendant had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the obvious danger of a foul ball being hit into the stands.
. . .In its amicus brief, the office of the commissioner of baseball, paraphrasing Justice Cardozo, justifies this result with the cavalier observation that "the timorous may always choose to stay at home." . . . Perhaps a more gracious approach would be for major league baseball to elect to internalize the costs of unavoidable injuries sustained by fans through no fault of their own. On the theory the plaintiff has asserted, however, we do not so require.
Sounds about right to me.
4 Comments:
Hmmm...I wonder how many MLB owners are Coase fans?
Hi Mr. Marston,
Hope all is well on your end. This is simply amazing to read this post; when you buy the ticket it says right on the back that you view at your own risk and whatnot. I must confess that I do enjoy the judge's reasoning; the premise of baseball implies some level of danger for the spectator. However, I think paying $7.00 for a beer is much more damaging to my wallet then a clunk on the head from a ball, maybe I can sue for that!
--Ian
P.S.: I was considering a trip to DC at some point during the summer and was curious if you would be interested in still showing me the sights.
--on Coase: do you mean lefty Coase, the inventor of the "better run avoider" theory of bullpen management?
--on being harmed by the ticket price: try getting a late-season seat at Fenway, Ian! Whoa. (As for visits: come on down!)
hey Mr. Marston
I hope all is going well for you and the new Mrs. down in our lovely nation's capital. Just wondering what you may have thought of the Reagan Funeral and the press coverage of it. If you get the time to respond and the motivation to do so, please shoot any thoughts my way, email is mkelly@oswego.edu. Again, hope all is well and hopefully I will hear from you soon.
Mike Kelly
P.S.~Posting as a fellow Red Sox fan, I have faith that we can pull it out (and if we don't, at least we get to keep our souls).
Post a Comment
<< Home