Spectators rarely realize this until it is too late: watching a sport involves taking a risk. A fly ball at a baseball game, or a stumbling player at a basketball game can bring pain and suffering to some unfortunate member in the audience. Once the pain is inflicted, spectators naturally want compensation for the oncoming medical bills and lost wages during recovery. Still, some arenas and sports teams will make sure that they are not held liable for these types of injuries. So, when you are hit in the head with a basketball, or crushed by an off-balance football player, do you have a legitimate personal injury case?
The courts developed three principal theories that are used to determine whether or not an organizer or owner is liable to a plaintiff injured at a sports game. First, courts use the general negligence theory to assess the case. Essentially, every stadium owner or organizer should take precautions to prevent any foreseeable injuries. This may mean putting up fences or guard rails to deflect stray balls, or cautioning audiences of any possible injuries prior to the game. The jury on a spectator sport personal injury case usually invokes this principal to help them come to their final ruling.
As shown in the case Colorado, Hook v. Lackside Park Co., and other cases not all states adhere to this rule. Famous spectator cases in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and North Carolina have bypassed this first principal to arrive at their verdict. Baseball cases, in particular, are often exempt from this principal, because courts will pass legislation protecting the owners and operators of baseball stadiums. That way they can preserve the American pastime from coming under fire by injured men and women.
Second, courts use the limited duty rule. This principle claims that the owner or organizer of the arena or stadium owes a limited duty to spectators. This duty is to protect spectators that are subject to a high risk of injury. This rule was first created following the Riley vs. Chicago Cougars Hockey Club, Inc. case in 1981. In this case, a young man was seated in the first row of the balcony near one of the goals at an ice hockey rink. A hockey puck deflected off of one of the player's sticks, and soared towards Riley. The puck hit him in the left temple, knocking him unconscious. The victim suffered Jacksonian seizures and a brain lesion, and deals with epileptic seizures to this day. In the personal injury case, the plaintiff was originally awarded $90,000, which was to be paid by the hockey team for their negligence. Eventually, the verdict was returned, because the hockey team proved that they had not gone against any legal protocol that could have prevented the accident.
Third, the courts will observe the assumption of risk at the sporting event. The spectator is assuming risk when he or she enters a sporting event. Still, some situations go above the original assumption of risk, and deserve a monetary reward. Assumed risks must be obvious. Some courts will merge this third standard with the limited duty theory, so that stadiums and sports arenas or fields are held liable to make conditions as safe as they can. If a risk seems obvious, then the plaintiff is held responsible for his or her own injury. In New York, five important cases have framed the "assumption of risk" ideas. The New York courts have declared that as long as the injured party was aware of the danger of standing or sitting where they did, that they are not eligible for any recovery from the stadium.
Every spectator personal injury case is unique, and depending on your circumstances, you may be able to prove that the stadium was at fault for your injuries. For example, if protective netting is not hung where it is necessary, this can create a lawsuit. However, if the stadium warns people that standing in a particular unprotected area is a risk, then the stadium will most likely avoid any lawsuits. Speak to a personal injury lawyer about your case to get more information and determine whether or not your injury can be compensated.