Mills v. Durham Bulls Baseball Club, Inc.

854 S.E.2d 126

Wiliam S. MILLS, as Guardian ad Litem FOR Angelina DEBLASIO, Plaintiff,

v.The DURHAM BULLS BASEBALL CLUB, INC., Defendant.

No. COA19-510

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 31, 2020

Ward & Smith, P.A., by Alexander C. Dale, Wilmington, A. Charles Ellis, Winterville, and Christopher S. Edwards, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Fox Rothschild LLP, Greensboro, by D. Erik Albright and Kip David Nelson, for Defendant-Appellee.

McGEE, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Angelina DeBlasio ("Plaintiff"),¹ who was hit and injured by a foul ball at a baseball game, appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of The Durham Bulls Baseball Club, Inc. ("Defendant") and dismissing her complaint. On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the common law "Baseball Rule," which disclaims liability for baseball stadium operators who satisfy their duty to protect patrons from errant balls by providing an adequate number of screened seats, Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, LLC , 221 N.C. App. 654, 656–57, 729 S.E.2d 107, 109–10 (2012), does not apply to the facts of this case. Though Plaintiff undoubtedly suffered a painful and unfortunate injury, we hold that the Baseball Rule is applicable and affirm the trial court's order.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff was born in 2004 in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Plaintiff took up softball while living in Pittsburgh, and attended several Pittsburgh Pirates games in 2014 and 2015 with her family. Plaintiff's younger siblings both play either baseball or softball, and baseball is a popular sport with Plaintiff's parents and siblings; since 2014, Plaintiff's family would get together and watch three or four Major League Baseball playoff games on TV each season. Plaintiff paid attention to the majority of each game she watched on TV or attended in person.

Plaintiff's father worked for Panasonic Avionics ("Panasonic"), a job which led Plaintiff's family to relocate to North Carolina in 2015. To celebrate the move and introduce Plaintiff's family to the other area employees, Panasonic arranged for a picnic meet-and-greet at Durham Bulls Athletic Park during a baseball game hosted by the Durham Bulls on 5 August 2015. Panasonic reserved a publicly accessible picnic area called the Bull Pen Picnic Area ("Picnic Area") for the event.

The Picnic Area is an open-air section of the stadium situated behind the left-field foul line in the corner of the outfield at one of the furthest spots in left field from home plate. Located at about field level and—as of 5 August 2015—separated from the area of play only by a low wall, the Picnic Area is outside the 110 feet of protective netting that runs from behind home plate towards each team's dugout. The portion of the Picnic Area closest to the field includes picnic tables with umbrellas, while the area furthest from the field is open space. Three warning signs are posted along the Picnic Area's field wall, stating "PLEASE BE AWARE OF OBJECTS LEAVING THE PLAYING FIELD," and other similar signs are placed throughout the stadium. Prior to each game, the Durham Bulls play an announcement over the public address system warning visitors that baseballs may "come flying at ya’ at a high rate of speed, so please stay alert while you're in the seating bowl."

On the night of the picnic, Plaintiff's family arrived at the ballpark around 6:15 p.m. and learned for the first time that they would be sitting in the Picnic Area. They made their way to the Picnic Area before the game started and took pictures of several players warming up. Plaintiff did not pay attention to the game once it started, later testifying at deposition that she saw "[j]ust a little bit" of the game. Instead, Plaintiff spent most of her time talking to her parents while occasionally getting food from the buffet at the back of the Picnic Area. Plaintiff's father paid closer attention to the game and saw three or four foul balls enter the stands during play. He also spoke to one of the players from the visiting team, who sometimes sat on the low wall separating the Picnic Area from the field. Neither he nor his daughter heard the public announcement about errant balls, nor did they see any of the signs warning attendees about objects leaving the field.

Around 8:00 p.m., as Plaintiff was seated on a bench facing the field and talking to her mother, a foul ball exited the field of play, entered the Picnic Area, and struck Plaintiff in the face. She suffered severe injuries, including multiple dislocated teeth and broken bones in and around her jaw. She was taken from the stadium to Duke University Medical Center's Emergency Department, where she underwent endodontic and orthodontic surgeries later that night. She returned to the Medical Center the following month for additional endodontic and orthodontic surgery.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant on 21 December 2016, alleging one count of negligence in connection with the events of 5 August 2015. Defendant filed an answer on 28 February 2017 and, following discovery, moved for summary judgment on 13 November 2018. In its motion, Defendant asserted that "[u]nder long-standing North Carolina precedent known as the ‘baseball rule,’ ... Defendant was not negligent as a matter of law." The trial court granted Defendant's motion and entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint on 28 December 2018. Plaintiff appeals.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff's appeal from summary judgment is subject to de novo review. Bryson , 221 N.C. App. at 656, 729 S.E.2d at 109. The trial court's grant of summary judgment will be affirmed "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2017). To demonstrate a valid cause of action for negligence at the summary judgment stage, a claimant must forecast evidence showing that: " ‘(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the defendant's conduct breached that duty; (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and (4) plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the injury.’ " Hamby v. Thurman Timber Co., LLC , 260 N.C. App. 357, 363, 818 S.E.2d 318, 323 (2018) (quoting Wallen v. Riverside Sports Ctr. , 173 N.C. App. 408, 411, 618 S.E.2d 858, 861 (2005) ).

The parties dispute whether the common law Baseball Rule necessarily defeats Plaintiff's claim based on the evidence presented at summary judgment. Under the Rule, baseball field "operators ‘are held to have discharged their full duty to spectators in safeguarding them from the danger of being struck by thrown or batted balls by providing adequately screened seats for patrons who desire them, and leaving the patrons to their choice between such screened seats and those unscreened.’ " Bryson , 221 N.C. App. at 657, 729 S.E.2d at 109 (quoting Cates v. Cincinnati Exhibition Co. , 215 N.C. 64, 66, 1 S.E.2d 131, 133 (1939) ). That duty is discharged even when there are not enough screened seats to meet the demand for them. Id. at 657, 729 S.E.2d at 109–10. In other words:

Reasonable care is all that is required,—that is, care commensurate with the circumstances of the situation,—in protecting patrons from injuries.

And the duty to exercise reasonable care imposes no obligation to provide protective screening for all seats .... Nor is management required, in order to free itself from negligence, to provide protected seats for all who may possibly apply for them. It is enough to provide screened seats, in the areas back of home plate where the danger of sharp foul tips is greatest, in sufficient number to accommodate as many patrons as may reasonably be expected to call for them on ordinary occasions.

Erickson v. Lexington Baseball Club , 233 N.C. 627, 628, 65 S.E.2d 140, 141 (1951) (citations omitted).

In this case, Plaintiff argues that the Baseball Rule should not apply for five reasons: (1) Plaintiff lacked sufficient knowledge of the game of baseball to understand that foul balls could be hit into the stands and cause injury to unprotected spectators; (2) she did not have a choice between sitting in the Picnic Area and the stadium's screened seats; (3) she was not, in fact, a spectator, as she considered herself to be attending a company picnic rather than a baseball game; (4) the Picnic Area was negligently designed and that negligent design caused Plaintiff's injury; and (5) the Baseball Rule, created at a time when baseball was central to and synonymous with American popular culture and sport, should be abandoned as outdated. We address each argument in turn.

In her first argument, Plaintiff maintains that the Baseball Rule applies only to cases in which a spectator of sufficient age and experience with the game of baseball is hit by an errant baseball based on the following language from Cates : "[‘]We believe that as to all who, with full knowledge of the danger from thrown or batted balls , attend a baseball game the management cannot be held negligent when it provides a choice between a screened in and an open seat[.][’]" Cates , 215 N.C. at 66, 1 S.E.2d at 132 (emphasis added) (quoting Wells v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Assoc. , 122 Minn. 327, 329-31, 142 N.W. 706, 707 (1913) ). Plaintiff asserts that because she was eleven years old at the time of the injury and had never personally witnessed a foul ball enter the stands, she lacked "full knowledge of the danger from thrown or batted balls." Id. The contention fails, however, because evidence introduced at the trial level demonstrates Plaintiff had adequate knowledge of the game under North Carolina law to be aware of the danger posed by foul balls regardless of whether she had ever personally witnessed one enter the stands.

Our Supreme Court has held that "[a]nyone familiar with the game of baseball knows that balls are...