top of page
  • Writer's pictureBuzin Law


This past week a little girl attended a baseball game with her grandfather at Yankee Stadium and was struck by a 105-mph foul ball.

Typically cases involving these types of injuries are not viable because fans “assume the risk” of this outcome when they purchase a ticket, and incidents such as these are written off as “accidents.”

But numerous articles this week questioned whether these injuries were preventable with an inexpensive fix: extended netting.

One article even brought up a past incident that occurred that resulted in the death of a baseball spectator:

Science has told us that even the most attentive fans don’t stand much of a chance when a line drive is ripped into the stands.

Given that only the teams can prevent injuries of this type, isn’t it time that they are held accountable if they choose not to simply extend the protective netting? All the ingredients for a viable claim are present: (1) duty to protect fans; (2) foreseeability of injuries of this type; (3) breach of the duty to protect fans; (3) their breach caused harm. If teams choose to not extend their netting, then they should be able to be held responsible for their malfeasance.

10 views0 comments


bottom of page