N.J. Supreme Court Gives Fans Right to Sue for Foul-Ball Injuries

A New Jersey baseball fan who was struck in the face by a foul ball while purchasing a drink in a concession area has won the right to sue the ballpark for negligence.

The state Supreme Court ruled that while fans assume risk of injury in the stands, “public policy and fairness” dictate that they should have greater protection in other areas of a stadium.

“Once the fan has disengaged him or herself from the activity on the field and has left the stands, that individual is no longer trying to catch foul balls or even necessarily watching the game,” the justices wrote. “It is all harmless fun ? until that one foul ball comes screaming at the wrong time and in the wrong place.”

Louis Maisonave, 46, suffered a facial injury when a foul ball struck him in the eye as he stood on the mezzanine at Riverfront Stadium, home field of the minor-league Newark Bears baseball team. At the time of the incident, the stadium used movable vending carts for beverage sales because construction of the ballpark had not yet been completed.

“Standing at the beverage cart before I was hit, I was not thinking about the possibility of a foul ball coming at me,” Maisonave said in a written statement describing the Aug. 26, 1999, incident. “I didn’t think anything could happen to me there.”

Maisonave sued the Newark Bears and Gourmet Dining Services, which provides food and beverage services for Riverfront Stadium, for negligence. He maintains that as a result of the accident, he suffered numerous fractures, persistent numbness around his eye and other injuries.

Essex County Superior Court Judge Harriet F. Klein threw out the suit, ruling that the team had met its obligations by providing netting in front of the areas where foul balls pose the greatest threat to fans. She said that if all seating may not be screened, neither should that be a requirement for “all vending carts and other services in close proximity to the seating.”

A state appellate court reversed, holding that the operators of a commercial sports facility have a “concomitant duty to exercise reasonable care to protect [spectators] during such times of heightened vulnerability.”

The Supreme Court agreed with this assertion.

“We hold that the limited-duty rule, which restricts the tort liability of owners, applies in situations where an injury occurs in the stands,” the state’s highest court wrote. “However, public policy and fairness require application of traditional negligence principles in all other areas of the stadium, including, but not limited to, concourses and mezzanine areas.”

The justices added that nothing about the game of baseball distinguishes it from other businesses in a way that justifies preferential treatment for stadium owners and operators for injuries that occur outside the stands.

“[I]n areas outside of the stands, including concourses and mezzanines such as the one in this appeal, a commercial sports facility is no different than any other commercial establishment,” the justices said, “and we do not hesitate to apply general negligence principles in virtually all other tort situations.”