|
|
|
|
Thurmond v. Prince William Baseball Club, Inc., et al., 264 Va. 59, 574 S.E.2d 246 (Jan. 10, 2003)In this case, Donna P. Thurmond, the Plaintiff, was severely injured after being struck in the face by a foul ball while attending a Prince William Cannons minor league baseball game. Thurmond filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Prince William County, Virginia against, inter alia, Prince William Baseball Club, Inc. and Major League Baseball ("Defendants"). Thurmond’s Complaint alleged that she was injured as a result of the Defendants’ negligence in failing to maintain the stadium in a safe condition to prevent injuries to spectators. Specifically, Thurmond claimed that the stadium seats were too close to the playing field, the lighting conditions were dangerous, and the warnings were inadequate. Thurmond conceded that she remained alert throughout the game and observed hitters and batted balls for more than seven innings before being injured. Thus the Court found that reasonable persons could not disagree that she was familiar with the game of baseball, knew the risk of being injured by a batted ball, and voluntarily exposed herself to that risk by remaining seated in an unscreened area. The trial court granted the Defendants motion for summary judgment, stating that Thurmond assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law when she voluntarily chose to sit in an unscreened area of the stadium. The issue on appeal is whether voluntary exposure as a matter of law can be resolved without trial testimony. The great weight of authority from other jurisdictions reflects the general rule that, as a matter of law, a spectator assumes the normal risks of watching a baseball game, which includes the danger of being hit by a foul ball while seated in an unscreened section of the stadium. Application of this general rule requires use of a subjective standard, which addresses whether a particular plaintiff fully understood the nature and extent of a known danger, and voluntarily exposed herself to that danger. Although the defense of assumption of the risk ordinarily presents a jury question, summary judgment remains appropriate if reasonable minds could not differ on the issue. In Thurmond v. Prince William Professional Baseball Club, the Virginia Supreme Court adopted this general rule for application in Virginia. The appellate court held that when a particular adult spectator of ordinary intelligence is familiar with the game of baseball, that spectator assumes the normal risks of watching a baseball game, including the danger of being hit by a ball batted into an unscreened seating area of the stadium. In this case, Thurmond’s arguments regarding the adequacy of the warnings, the lighting conditions, and the field dimensions did not present issues of fact that were material to the conclusions of law. This case is also significant for its disclosure of a little known fact: that many jurisdictions require stadium owners to reserve a reasonable number of seats in a protected area (i.e., the screened portion behind home plate) for spectators who request to be reseated because they are uncomfortable sitting in the unscreened area of the stadium. Can you image the dramatic increase in the number of "uncomfortable spectators" after publication of this opinion? |
|
Send E-mail to info(at)jocs-law.com with questions
or comments about this web site.
General contact information.
|
