Case Brief Turner v. Mandalay

TITLE AND VENUE:

Turner v. Mandalay, 180 P.3d 1172 (Nev. 2008)

RULE OF LAW:

The Court held that the baseball stadium owners and operators had an obligation to protect spectators from foul balls within the confines of the stadium under the “limited duty rule”, and that the concessions area within the stadium did not pose an unduly high risk of injury under this rule. Further, whether primary implied assumption of risk doctrine bars a plaintiff’s claim should not be treated as an affirmative defense, and should instead be incorporated into the district court’s initial duty analysis.

FACTS:

Plaintiff, Kathleen Turner, was injured when a foul ball struck her in the face as she sat in the baseball stadium’s “Beer Garden” concession area, which had no protective screen surrounding it. The plaintiff brought negligence and emotional distress claims against the owner and operator of the minor league baseball team, Defendant, Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLC.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondent had a duty to protect patrons seated in the concession area under the limited duty rule imposed on baseball stadium owners and operators.

OPINION AND DECISION:

The Court found that baseball stadium owners and operators have a limited duty to protect spectators against injuries caused by foul balls that are errantly projected into the stands. Respondent satisfied its duty to protect defendant, as (i) defendant provided the required protective seating area for those spectators seated in areas that pose an unduly high risk of injury from foul balls; (ii) defendant chose not to sit in the protected seating area; (iii) the concession areas did not pose an unduly high risk of injury; and (iv) foul balls are a known, obvious, and unavoidable part of all baseball games. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in respondent's favor.

USE OF PRECEDENT:

At least 12 other jurisdictions have adopted the “limited duty rule,” including Michigan. In Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 246 Mich.App. 645, 635 N.W.d 219, 223 (2001), the Michigan court detailed the obligations of owners/operators under the limited duty rule (“Benejam”, 2001). The majority of cases have also followed the ruling in Turner v. Mandalay regarding the assumption of risk. However, in Rountree v. Boise Baseball, 154 Idaho 167 (Id. 2013), the court declined to follow Turner, in that Idaho applies a comparative negligence standard for the plaintiff’s assumption of risk. This is unlike the Nevada Court, which held that the plaintiff’s assumption should not be treated as an affirmative defense (“Rountree”, 2013).

EFFECT ON BUSINESS AND SOCIETY:

The ruling will have an effect on stadium business operations for two reasons: (i) the owners/operators must clearly identify which areas of the stadium pose an unduly high risk of injury under the limited duty rule, and protect those areas in accordance with the rule; and (ii) the owners/operators will be relieved of their obligation to protect any areas that are outside of the risk area. The ruling will have an effect on society, as the assumption of risk for visitors to a baseball park is clearly established under Turner.  

References

Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.. (2001, October 9). WestlawNext. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I8e1109e9ff7811d983e7e9deff98dc6f/ View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC. (2013, February 22). WestlawNext. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iea2e89287cfb11e2bae89fc449e7cd17/