Facts Delinda Middleton Taylor went to a Mariners baseball game at Safeco Field
ID: 407268 • Letter: F
Question
Facts
Delinda Middleton Taylor went to a Mariners baseball game at Safeco Field with her boyfriend and two minor sons. Their seats were four rows up from the field along the right field foul line. They arrived more than an hour before the game began so that they could see the players warm up and get their autographs. When she walked in, Taylor saw that the Mariners pitcher Freddy Garcia was throwing a ball back and forth with Jose Mesa right in front of their seats. As Taylor stood in front of her seat she looked away from the field, and a ball thrown by Mesa got past Garcia and struck her in the face causing serious injuries. Taylor sue the Mariners for the allegedly negligent warm-up throw. The Mariners filed a motion for a summary judgment in which they argues that Taylor, a Mariners fan, was familiar with baseball and the inherent risk of balls entering the stands, and therefore assumed the risk of her injury. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Taylor's case. Taylor appealed.
ISSUE
Was the risk of injury from an errant baseball thrown during pregame warm-up foreseeable to a reasonable person with Taylor's familiarity with baseball?
DECISION
Yes. The state interemediate appeallate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Taylor, as a spectator in an uprotected area of seats, voluntarily undertook the risk associated with being hit by an errant baseball thrown during warm-ups before the start of the game.
REASON
The court observed that there was substantial evidence that Taylor was familiar with the game. She was a seasoned Mariners fan, and both of her sons had played baseball for at least six years. "she attended many of her sons' baseball games, she witnessed balls entering the stands, she had watched Mariners games both at the Kingdome and on television, and she knew that there was no screen protecting her seats, which were close to the field. In fact as she walked to ther seat she saw the players warming up and was excited about being in an unscreened area where her party might get autographs from the players and catch balls." It was not legally relevant that the injury occured during pregame warmup because "it is the normal, every-day practice at all of baseball for pitchers to warm up in the manner that led to this incident" The Mariners had satisfied their duty to protect spectators from balls entering the stands by providing a protective screen behind home plate. Taylor chose not to sit in the protected area and thus knowingly put herself at risk.
CRITICAL THINKING - ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
Would the result in this case have been different if Taylor's minor son, rather than Taylor herself, had been struck by the ball? Should courts apply the doctrine of assumption of risk to children? Discuss.
Explanation / Answer
Answer:
An assumpton of risk is when a plaintf may not recover for injuries or damage sufered from risks he or she knows of and has voluntarily assumed. In the case presented, it was brought To light That Taylor’s son plays baseball Therefore he knows the risk involved with playing or being a by stander. So I feel That if Taylor’s son had been struck by The ball instead of Taylor, Then courts should apply the doctrine of assumpton of risk to her son.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.