She got hit by a foul ball at a Durham Bulls game. Does she have a court case?
In 2015, Angelina DeBlasio was sitting on a picnic bench at a Durham Bulls game, chatting with her mother, when a foul ball flew over the left-field wall and struck her in the face.
That night, the 11-year-old girl had surgery to correct several dislocated teeth and broken bones in and around her jaw — injuries severe enough that her family sued the Bulls for negligence.
Her lawsuit argued several points: one, Angelina wasn’t old enough to understand the risks; two, she wasn’t even attending the game but rather a company picnic, where she had no choice but to sit in an unscreened area; and three, the Bulls didn’t take enough precautions to protect its spectators.
But Angelina’s court case got dismissed, and on Thursday, the NC Court of Appeals backed the Bulls.
“Though Plaintiff undoubtedly suffered a painful and unfortunate injury,” wrote Chief Judge Linda McGee, “we hold that the Baseball Rule is applicable.”
The “Baseball Rule” figures large in the court proceedings.
Dating back more than a century, it is a legal precedent holding that baseball teams are not liable for fans’ injuries if they have offered some protected seating. At Durham Bulls Athletic Park and most every other stadium in the country, the seats closest to home plate are guarded by a net.
As part of her appeal, Angelina, represented by a guardian ad litem, argued that the rule is archaic and dates to a time when baseball held greater sway over American culture.
Challenges to the ‘Baseball rule’
Foul-ball lawsuits are common.
In April, a 28-year-old woman sued the Chicago Cubs after being knocked unconscious at Wrigley Field, USA Today reported.
The Baseball Rule has long blocked such suits from succeeding, shielding teams from liability. But in February, the Los Angeles Times reported, a California appeals court made a rare ruling in favor of a 12-year-old hit in the face, arguing she should be able to make her case despite a lower court’s tossing it out.
But a three-judge panel in Raleigh ruled against the reasoning in Angelina’s case.
For one, she had attended baseball games before and watched more on television, and she had played softball for several years.
“We hold that ... plaintiff, like ‘anyone familiar with the game’ ... had sufficient knowledge of the sport to comprehend the danger of balls fouled into the stands even if she had never witnessed such an event herself,” the court wrote.
As to the unprotected seating, the court wrote that Angelina’s family arrived before the game, knew a ballgame would be played, sat in the picnic area knowing it had no screening and chose to stay. The Baseball Rule prevents them from recovering damages.
In her case, Angelina’s guardian ad litem argued that the picnic area’s design sometimes forces spectators to sit with their backs to the game, and that umbrellas and visiting players can block the view of the field.
But the court ruled she showed no evidence that any of this led to her injury, and it noted the picnic area includes signs warning of foul balls. Again, the Baseball Rule applies.
Finally, the court ruled that the Baseball Rule, old as it may be, has been cited by a higher court, leaving the judges no authority to overturn the lower court’s ruling.