Shaw v. Boston Am. League Baseball Co.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1950
• Citation: 90 N.E.2d 840,325 Mass. 419
• Parties: SHAW v. BOSTON AMERICAN LEAGUE BASEBALL CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

325 Mass. 419

90 N.E.2d 840

SHAW v. BOSTON AMERICAN LEAGUE BASEBALL CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 6, 1950

Argued Feb. 10 1950.

R. N. Daley Boston, P. S. Ratzkoff, Boston, for plaintiffs.

S. P. Sears Boston, for defendant.

Before QUA, C. J and LUMMUS, RONAN, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

The female plaintiff, hereinafter called the plaintiff, was struck and injured by a baseball while attending a game at the defendant's baseball park, and out of that incident these two actions of tort arose. In one, the plaintiff seeks compensation for her injuries. In the other, consequential damages are sought by her husband. The answers of the defendant included the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. See Sylvain v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 280 Mass. 503, 505, 182 N.E. 835.

The defendant operates a ball park in Boston in which major league baseball games are played. It is agreed that on the day the plaintiff was injured the defendant was in control of the park, and that the plaintiff and her husband were there as business invitees.

These facts could have been found. On April 26, 1942, the plaintiff and her husband, accompanied by one Corcoran and his wife went to the defendant's park to see a baseball game. Because it was Sunday and the game was being played with the 'Yankees,' a popular club, there was a 'sell-out' crowd. The tickets, which had been purchased by Corcoran, called for seats in box A-31. This box was located between home plate and first base. The 'A' boxes were those nearest the playing field. The box in question was in an enclosure nearly eight feet wide and was separated from the field by a concrete wall and thirty-two inches high. There was no screening in front of the box. The distance from the front of the box to the rear was approximately six and one half feet. On either end of the enclosure was an iron railing which separated it from the adjoining boxes. At the rear of the enclosure there was also an iron railing, in the center of which was an opening twenty-two inches in width through which one passed to enter the boxes. Within the enclosure were two boxes. Box A-31 contained six seats (in two rows of three each), four of which were to the right of the opening as one faced the playing field. The other two seats were folding chairs which were unfolded and placed in the passageway or space opposite the opening, as needed. Box A-32 was to the left of the opening and contained four seats.

When the plaintiff's group arrived at the box the two folding chairs had not been set up and there were only four chairs in box A-31. The plaintiff took the seat in the front row nearest the railing on the right. Before the game started all of the seats in the enclosure were occupied, including the two folding chairs which had been set up by the usher in the space opposite the opening to seat two men, Silin and Hogan, who had joined the plaintiff's group. Upon their arrival, Mrs. Corcoran, who had been sitting next to the plaintiff, took the seat to her left, and Silin occupied the seat next to the plaintiff. Up to that time 'there was enough room to sit in the boxes'; the space between seats was about ten inches. Thereafter 'the box in which * * * [the plaintiff] was sitting was crowded.' Her right arm was touching the rail on her right and Silin 'was so close to her on her left that he was touching * * * her.'

Although it does not appear that the plaintiff had ever sat in a box before, she was a 'fan' and had attended many ball games. She knew that foul balls often landed in the stands and that 'the so called foul tip and * * * line drive foul were very fast moving balls.' Around the fifth or sixth inning the plaintiff was struck on the head by a foul ball. She saw it leave the bat and 'turned up against the rail * * * [until she] couldn't go any farther * * * and the next thing she knew she was hit.' It all happened very quickly.' The interval of time between the ball leaving the bat and her being struck was 'a split second * * * it was almost the snap of the finger.' The distance between home plate and the place where the plaintiff was sitting was approximately seventy feet.

At the close of the evidence the defendant presented motions for directed verdicts, which were allowed subject to the plaintiffs' exceptions. The sole question for decision is whether the allowance of these motions was right.

The liability of the proprietor of a ball park to patrons injured by balls batted or thrown during a game is a question which has never been presented to this court. However, the basic principles governing such liability are not new. In Lemoine v. Springfield Hockey Association, Inc., 307 Mass. 102, 29 N.E.2d 716 (a case where the plaintiff was injured while attending a hockey game on the defendant's premises), it was said, 'One maintaining a place of amusement who has invited the public to attend upon the payment of an admission fee is bound to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for their use, and to warn them against any dangers which he knows or ought to know they might encounter while upon the premises and which they reasonably could not be expected to know. * * * But no warning is required to be given to one who already has become apprized of the danger or where the situation is so obvious that a person of ordinary intelligence would readily sense the likelihood of impending harm and would take active measures to avert it.' 307 Mass. page 104, 29 N.E.2d page 718. To the same effect are Shanney v. Boston Madison Square Garden Corp., 296 Mass. 168, 5 N.E.2d 1, and cases therein cited.

Cases involving baseball have arisen in other jurisdictions and it has uniformly been held--and correctly we think--that a spectator familiar with the game assumes the reasonable risks and hazards inherent in the game. Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, Inc., 349 Mo. 1215, 1224, 164 S.W.2d 318 142 A.L.R. 858; Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 168 Mo.App. 301, 153 S.W. 1076; Kavafian v. Seattle Baseball Club Association, 105 Wash. 215, 219-221, 177 P. 776, 181 P. 679; Brisson v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Association, 185 Minn. 507, 240 N.W. 903. See note in 142 A.L.R. 868 et seq. And it is common knowledge that one of these hazards is the possibility of being hit by a foul ball. In cases where recovery has been permitted the rule just stated has been recognized and liability was imposed either because the plaintiff was unfamiliar with the game or because the risk was not the ordinary one. Wells v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Association, 122 Minn. 327, 142 N.W. 706, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 606, Ann.Cas.1914D, 922 (plaintiff unfamiliar with game). Edling v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 181 Mo.App. 327, 168 S.W. 908 (plaintiff injured by ball passing through defective screen). Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175, 147 N.E. 86 (plaintiff's injury caused by ball hit during batting practice which was conducted close to grandstand). Grimes...