 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scalco v. Des Moines Semi-Pro Baseball12/13/2000
that the owner or operator of a ballpark fully discharges any obligation to protect spectators from thrown or hit balls by providing seating in a fully protected area. Where a spectator rejects the protected seating and opts for seating that is not, or is less, protected the owner or operator is not liable. Arnold, 443 N.W.2d at 333 (emphasis added)(citations omitted).
The supreme court set out a two-prong test in Arnold regarding the duty of a baseball park owner or operator to protect spectators: (1) the proprietor need only provide screening for the area of the field behind home plate where the danger of being struck by a ball is the greatest; and (2) such screening must be of sufficient extent to provide adequate protection for as many spectators as may reasonably be expected to desire such seating in the course of an ordinary game. Id. The court ultimately found in Arnold that because the defendants had screened the most dangerous parts of the spectator stands, behind home plate, and there was sufficient seating there for the plaintiff, the defendants owed Arnold nothing further. Id at 333-34.
It is undisputed that the District provided seating in a protected area behind home plate and that Scalco did not sit there, but instead on a blanket behind that area. At the least the area where she opted to sit was a less protected area if not completely unprotected. By providing such protected seating both the District and DMSPB fully discharged any obligation they had to protect Scalco as a spectator. Because Scalco rejected the protected seating and opted for other less protected seating, neither the owner nor operator of the park can be held liable to her.
Scalco seems to claim that the district court granted summary judgment to the District and DMSPB based on some special immunity, arguing they are receiving a special immunity that other professional teams do not get. However, nowhere in either the trial court's decision or in Arnold is there any mention of a special immunity for the owners or operators of baseball ballparks. The supreme court's decision in Arnold turned on the question of duty. It held that under the undisputed facts the owner had satisfied both prongs of the two-pong test regarding duty and had thus fully discharged its duty to the plaintiff. The district court in this case based its decision entirely on this same duty analysis. There was no special immunity or privilege given or suggested, in Arnold or in this case, for injuries to baseball spectators.
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude the district court was correct in concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact and that DMSPB and the District were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
|