 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scalco v. Des Moines Semi-Pro Baseball12/13/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.
On appeal following the grant of summary judgment dismissing her personal injury action against a school district and a semi-professional baseball league, plaintiff contends the court erred in concluding the defendants fully discharged their duty to her.
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Christeen Scalco appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the district court in favor of the defendants Des Moines Semi-Pro Baseball ("DMSPB") and the Des Moines Independent School District ("the District") dismissing her personal injury action. Scalco contends the district court erred in concluding DMSPB and the District fully discharged their duty to her. Further, Scalco argues baseball should not get a special privilege or immunity no other sport or property owner is granted to relieve them of liability for their negligent acts. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The District owns and maintains a baseball field on which DMSPB plays league games. The District allows DMSPB to use the field for ten Sundays out of the year. Scalco was sitting on a blanket directly behind the bleachers located behind home plate during one of these Sunday games. She was injured when a foul ball that was hit over the fence protecting the home plate bleachers struck her in the face. The District had erected protective barriers around the baseball field, including a fence behind home plate that is approximately fifteen feet high. The District further provided seating for spectators behind this fence. It is undisputed that Scalco was not sitting in the protected seating behind home plate provided by the District.
Scalco filed suit against both the District and DMSPB alleging that their negligence, in failing to warn of dangers that were not open and obvious and failing to provide adequate protective barriers, caused her injuries. The District and DMSBP both moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action based on the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Arnold v. City of Cedar Rapids, 443 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1989). The district court held that because Scalco was not seated in the bleachers provided by the District behind the protective fence, there was no fact issue as to whether the screen was of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for her.
Scalco appeals the grant of summary judgment contending the court erred in finding there was no question of fact regarding whether the fencing behind home plate was adequate to protect her. We disagree. Scalco further asks us to either distinguish or overrule the earlier decision in Arnold. We find any difference between the facts in Arnold and this case to be of no legal significance and decline Scalco's request to overrule Arnold.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a summary judgment ruling for correction of errors of law. Howell v. Merritt Co., 585 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Iowa 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. "We will review the record before the district court to determine whether an issue of material fact exists, and if not, whether the district court properly applied the law." Id. The facts are reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.; see also Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Iowa 1997).
III. MERITS
We believe the Arnold decision to be precisely on point and controlling in the case at hand. In Arnold our supreme court stated,
The principle seems well established
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|