Lecture 10.1 - Baseball Precedent

What was the traditional “Baseball Rule” before Akins?

Spectators assumed the risk of being hit by a ball when sitting in unprotected seats.

• So stadium owners owed no liability.

What key change did Akins make to the Baseball Rule?

Stadium owners owe a limited duty of care.

• They must provide some protected seating and avoid negligence, rather than having zero liability.

Did Akins abolish assumption of risk entirely?

No

• It modified it by requiring reasonable protective measures, not full elimination of risk.

Does the presence of unique facts in a case automatically change the law?

No

• Courts may distinguish or apply existing law without changing the rule.

What legal question did Akins have to decide?

Whether to retain the old assumption-of-risk rule or impose a limited duty of care on stadium owners.

What principle limits the protection stadium owners receive under Atkins?

If the owner increases the risk beyond what is inherent in the game, the limited duty rule may not apply.

What happened in Lowe v California League of Professional Baseball (1997)?

A spectator was hit by a ball while distracted by a team mascot.

Why did the Baseball Rule not protect the stadium owner in Lowe?

The mascot was not an inherent part of the same and increased the risk to spectators.

Key exam question in Baseball Rule cases involving distractions?

Did the stadium owner increase the risk of injury beyond the inherent risks of baseball?