No one is capable of focusing 100% of their attention on a sporting event including keeping a lookout for stray objects traveling at high rates of speed. While spectating may not be particularly vulnerable, sports events carry inherent risks and exposures to spectators. All it takes is someone looking away for a split second. Even the best efforts to protect spectators may fail and people need to understand they’re assuming the risk of injury anytime they attend one. Sometimes you’re better off way back in the cheap seats.
“Spokesperson for MLB, Yann Keesuk, announced that in response to growing concerns about spectator safety, in 2008 the following changes will be incorporated at all parks:
1. Food and drinks will no longer be sold in the stands by vendors. We have found that most children attending games spend more time looking at the vendors than at the game, hence creating a major distraction.
2. Only cellphones and PDA’s with heads-up displays will be allowed in use in the stands during the play of a game.
3. All yearbooks and game programs will only be sold at the end of each game, so that spectators are focused on the game and not the history of the game.
4. Fans will not be permitted to complete “box scores” unless they are doing so behind an approved Lexan screen, or off the stands watching TV remotely.
5. Any drinks sold at concessions must incorporate “drinking apparatus hats”, including a receptacle for the container and a straw, allowing hands-free enjoyment of beverages.
6. Food may not be carried from concessions back to seats without waivers being signed for temperature, allergens, and deflected or intended projectiles which may eventuate in the incapacity of the spectator.
7. In addition to the Seventh Inning stretch, and in order to incorporate repeated requests from broadcasters, there will now be a stretch at the middle of each inning, measuring 10 minutes in length, within which spectators may eat, drink, and be blackberry.
8. Following the example of European soccer, parks may elect to install proective devices between the playing field and grandstands. Devices may include but not be limited to mesh or solid transparent screens or an inner Dome at our warm-weather fields. Moats will not be allowed except for those cities where stadiums have been erected adjacent to bodies of water. Fenway shall be allowed to extend the Green Monster in both length and height.
9. All seats will be equipped with seat belts. Air bags are mandated on all tiers at or above 30′ higher than the playing field.
10. Sections will be retrofitted for the incontinent so as to reduce repeated trips to the washrooms. Parks will not be allowed to call these sections The Reliever, which has been trademarked by MLB.
11. Any reference to these rules without the express prior written consent of MLB will cause the violater to make up their own darned rules.
exactly iceman, except flip the coin…no athlete is 100% responsible for other people’s behavior NOR where the object hit will land (be it a ball, a puck, etc…).
The golfers involved should file suit against the spectators for tortious interference resulting in less than optimal peformance that resulted in psychological damage that will adversely impact their future performance and their earning capacity. Disrupting tournament play because you’re too old to see the ball or get out of the way is a forseeable hazard and the the spectator owed a duty to the golfers to warn them of said hazard. Breach of that duty creates the basis for a suit. I’m sure there’s some bottom feeding personal injury attorney out there who’s smacking his lips about now.
Here is something similar. I have a coworker who played golf at a tournament. He hit a ball and it hooked off the course and hit the window of a home that was built on (or near) the course. The window was broken. The house was behind some trees so he couldn’t actually see the damage but thought he heard the ball hit something. The lady of the house came out on the course and found his foursome and told them that one of them had broken her window. They determined that my coworker was the culprit and he gave her his address and phone number and she sent him a bill. She mentioned that it happens pretty regularly. She acted kind of put out that he had broken her window. This seems like it ought to be an assumption of risk to have built a home this close to the course.
I like the assumption of risk defense but why does it not apply to all? Tiger hits a lady and the lady should assume the risk. Tiger does not pay. The average joe as mentioned below hits a house and has to pay. The homeowner should assume the risk. Why did the average joe pay. Yes, you can argue because of disclaimer on the ticket but I would think you are safer on the course when Tiger hits a ball than when the average Joe hits a ball. Tiger is a professional. Avg Joe is not. If you stand in the fairway when the average Joe is teeing off, you should expect to get hit. But when you do get hit, the average Joe pays. I would not expect to get hit by Tiger or other pros, yet when they do injure somebody, they are not liable. Kind of backwards.
Based on the various comments, we see that yes, contrary to all the political blowhards (yes, I know that’s a redundancy) pontificating that we need government to regulate down the nth degree every area of human activity, businesses are quite capable of regulating themselves. After all, they must make a profit (gasp! there’s that dirty word!); if people start getting killed regularly at certain sporting events guess what? That’s right, people will stop attending those events.
Those industries that are free of government regulation innovate the fastest and offer the best value to consumers. For example, consider this: the software industry is minimally (if at all) regulated. Do you want to have government running that industry?
The house can’t move out of the way. If Average Joe is playing in a tournament attended by Tiger & hits someone, I would hope the assumption of risk doctrine would apply & Average Joe doesn’t have to pay. Guess you could negotiate with the homeowner for half (or whatever %) since they knew the house was on a golf course.
The assumption of risk doctrine should apply to everyone, including the homeowner. If I were adjusting the claim I’d deny liability for two reasons. First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.
Wait a second. You wrote “First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.”
First you say you would deny because stray shots are foreseeable – assuming the risk. Then you say you would deny because no negligence because the stray shot is not foreseeable. Is a stray shot foreseeable or not? Can’t be both.
Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify. The assumption of risk is a given. Stray shots from a golfer is a foreseeable event “to the property owner”. In other words, the owner should realize his property is exposed to stray shot. With that forseeability comes the assumption of risk that he want to live there anyway.
A stray shot from a golfer, unless there’s horseplay involved, doesn’t imply any negligence. Even the best golfers have them. In the absence of no negligence on the part of the golfer, there is no liability to the homeowner.
You must have seen me play. The only place I knew the ball wouldn’t go was towards the hole. Isn’t there some type of safety glass the homeowner could use? Greater cost, but no more than replacing the windows all the time.
Did y’all see that a 12 or 13 yr old girl was killed yesterday after getting hit in the face with a softball? I don’t know the particulars of the story, but it isn’t often that you get two such deaths in one week.
I remember a game I saw at our local minor league team. Back then the screen ended at the dugout. A lefty fought off a pitch and it flew right over the home dugout and smacked this guy 5 rows up right in the chest hard enough to make his popcorn fly all the way out onto the field. The next year the screen was extended to the end of the dugout. Even so, two people have gotten nailed there in the last week. One in the shoulder and another in the leg.
The only way to make baseball completely safe for spectators is to entirely cover the audience with screens front and above. Kind of like a fan aviary.
I suspect that you are hearing more about these kind of things lately is because the press is choosing to cover them. Not saying there is an agenda, but for what ever reason, the press is picking up on these stories now and so it is being thrust into the limelight.
Im surprised no one has enlightened you folks yet, but the guy did not have to pay for the broken window. He volunteered out of ignorance.
The golfer is not lible in any way. As long as its not intentional, you can hit another golfer, a car, or a house, and you are not lible. Thats how it shakes out in the courts.
That is news to me! I used to be an adjuster and saw plenty of claims for golf balls hitting homes, cars and other golfers and the homeowner’s paid the damages even though it was not intentional.
I have also seen many claims be paid for people unintentionlly slipping on ice, stairways, or cars hitting other cars unintentionally and paying the claim.
If the damage was intentional then it is excluded under most policies. If the damage was caused by negligence – forseeable or not, most insurance carriers would pay. That is my experience. Otherwise even if the golfer offered to pay, that does not mean the insurance company would pay. Your saying the insurance companies do not know they do not have to pay these claims.
No one is capable of focusing 100% of their attention on a sporting event including keeping a lookout for stray objects traveling at high rates of speed. While spectating may not be particularly vulnerable, sports events carry inherent risks and exposures to spectators. All it takes is someone looking away for a split second. Even the best efforts to protect spectators may fail and people need to understand they’re assuming the risk of injury anytime they attend one. Sometimes you’re better off way back in the cheap seats.
I can just see it now.
“Spokesperson for MLB, Yann Keesuk, announced that in response to growing concerns about spectator safety, in 2008 the following changes will be incorporated at all parks:
1. Food and drinks will no longer be sold in the stands by vendors. We have found that most children attending games spend more time looking at the vendors than at the game, hence creating a major distraction.
2. Only cellphones and PDA’s with heads-up displays will be allowed in use in the stands during the play of a game.
3. All yearbooks and game programs will only be sold at the end of each game, so that spectators are focused on the game and not the history of the game.
4. Fans will not be permitted to complete “box scores” unless they are doing so behind an approved Lexan screen, or off the stands watching TV remotely.
5. Any drinks sold at concessions must incorporate “drinking apparatus hats”, including a receptacle for the container and a straw, allowing hands-free enjoyment of beverages.
6. Food may not be carried from concessions back to seats without waivers being signed for temperature, allergens, and deflected or intended projectiles which may eventuate in the incapacity of the spectator.
7. In addition to the Seventh Inning stretch, and in order to incorporate repeated requests from broadcasters, there will now be a stretch at the middle of each inning, measuring 10 minutes in length, within which spectators may eat, drink, and be blackberry.
8. Following the example of European soccer, parks may elect to install proective devices between the playing field and grandstands. Devices may include but not be limited to mesh or solid transparent screens or an inner Dome at our warm-weather fields. Moats will not be allowed except for those cities where stadiums have been erected adjacent to bodies of water. Fenway shall be allowed to extend the Green Monster in both length and height.
9. All seats will be equipped with seat belts. Air bags are mandated on all tiers at or above 30′ higher than the playing field.
10. Sections will be retrofitted for the incontinent so as to reduce repeated trips to the washrooms. Parks will not be allowed to call these sections The Reliever, which has been trademarked by MLB.
11. Any reference to these rules without the express prior written consent of MLB will cause the violater to make up their own darned rules.
exactly iceman, except flip the coin…no athlete is 100% responsible for other people’s behavior NOR where the object hit will land (be it a ball, a puck, etc…).
If I fall out of bed tonight, I am going to sue the bedmaker.
Assumption of risk is exactly the doctrine that should apply at any event. Besides, she should be happy she got a free souvenir!
The golfers involved should file suit against the spectators for tortious interference resulting in less than optimal peformance that resulted in psychological damage that will adversely impact their future performance and their earning capacity. Disrupting tournament play because you’re too old to see the ball or get out of the way is a forseeable hazard and the the spectator owed a duty to the golfers to warn them of said hazard. Breach of that duty creates the basis for a suit. I’m sure there’s some bottom feeding personal injury attorney out there who’s smacking his lips about now.
Here is something similar. I have a coworker who played golf at a tournament. He hit a ball and it hooked off the course and hit the window of a home that was built on (or near) the course. The window was broken. The house was behind some trees so he couldn’t actually see the damage but thought he heard the ball hit something. The lady of the house came out on the course and found his foursome and told them that one of them had broken her window. They determined that my coworker was the culprit and he gave her his address and phone number and she sent him a bill. She mentioned that it happens pretty regularly. She acted kind of put out that he had broken her window. This seems like it ought to be an assumption of risk to have built a home this close to the course.
I like the assumption of risk defense but why does it not apply to all? Tiger hits a lady and the lady should assume the risk. Tiger does not pay. The average joe as mentioned below hits a house and has to pay. The homeowner should assume the risk. Why did the average joe pay. Yes, you can argue because of disclaimer on the ticket but I would think you are safer on the course when Tiger hits a ball than when the average Joe hits a ball. Tiger is a professional. Avg Joe is not. If you stand in the fairway when the average Joe is teeing off, you should expect to get hit. But when you do get hit, the average Joe pays. I would not expect to get hit by Tiger or other pros, yet when they do injure somebody, they are not liable. Kind of backwards.
Based on the various comments, we see that yes, contrary to all the political blowhards (yes, I know that’s a redundancy) pontificating that we need government to regulate down the nth degree every area of human activity, businesses are quite capable of regulating themselves. After all, they must make a profit (gasp! there’s that dirty word!); if people start getting killed regularly at certain sporting events guess what? That’s right, people will stop attending those events.
Those industries that are free of government regulation innovate the fastest and offer the best value to consumers. For example, consider this: the software industry is minimally (if at all) regulated. Do you want to have government running that industry?
The house can’t move out of the way. If Average Joe is playing in a tournament attended by Tiger & hits someone, I would hope the assumption of risk doctrine would apply & Average Joe doesn’t have to pay. Guess you could negotiate with the homeowner for half (or whatever %) since they knew the house was on a golf course.
Thats the point. The homeowner built the house in that location. He knew the risk when he built it. It should have never been built in that location.
The assumption of risk doctrine should apply to everyone, including the homeowner. If I were adjusting the claim I’d deny liability for two reasons. First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.
Wait a second. You wrote “First, on assumption of risk in building next to a golf course where stray shots are foreseeable. Second, a stray shot is not a foreseeable event and does not require negligence.”
First you say you would deny because stray shots are foreseeable – assuming the risk. Then you say you would deny because no negligence because the stray shot is not foreseeable. Is a stray shot foreseeable or not? Can’t be both.
Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to clarify. The assumption of risk is a given. Stray shots from a golfer is a foreseeable event “to the property owner”. In other words, the owner should realize his property is exposed to stray shot. With that forseeability comes the assumption of risk that he want to live there anyway.
A stray shot from a golfer, unless there’s horseplay involved, doesn’t imply any negligence. Even the best golfers have them. In the absence of no negligence on the part of the golfer, there is no liability to the homeowner.
You must have seen me play. The only place I knew the ball wouldn’t go was towards the hole. Isn’t there some type of safety glass the homeowner could use? Greater cost, but no more than replacing the windows all the time.
Did y’all see that a 12 or 13 yr old girl was killed yesterday after getting hit in the face with a softball? I don’t know the particulars of the story, but it isn’t often that you get two such deaths in one week.
I remember a game I saw at our local minor league team. Back then the screen ended at the dugout. A lefty fought off a pitch and it flew right over the home dugout and smacked this guy 5 rows up right in the chest hard enough to make his popcorn fly all the way out onto the field. The next year the screen was extended to the end of the dugout. Even so, two people have gotten nailed there in the last week. One in the shoulder and another in the leg.
The only way to make baseball completely safe for spectators is to entirely cover the audience with screens front and above. Kind of like a fan aviary.
I suspect that you are hearing more about these kind of things lately is because the press is choosing to cover them. Not saying there is an agenda, but for what ever reason, the press is picking up on these stories now and so it is being thrust into the limelight.
Im surprised no one has enlightened you folks yet, but the guy did not have to pay for the broken window. He volunteered out of ignorance.
The golfer is not lible in any way. As long as its not intentional, you can hit another golfer, a car, or a house, and you are not lible. Thats how it shakes out in the courts.
That is news to me! I used to be an adjuster and saw plenty of claims for golf balls hitting homes, cars and other golfers and the homeowner’s paid the damages even though it was not intentional.
I have also seen many claims be paid for people unintentionlly slipping on ice, stairways, or cars hitting other cars unintentionally and paying the claim.
If the damage was intentional then it is excluded under most policies. If the damage was caused by negligence – forseeable or not, most insurance carriers would pay. That is my experience. Otherwise even if the golfer offered to pay, that does not mean the insurance company would pay. Your saying the insurance companies do not know they do not have to pay these claims.
C-ya