Q:  Maybe we are getting paranoid in our old age, but this concern arises because we are taking our grand child to a football game.  Is the owner of the stadium obligated to make sure it’s safe so that we will not be at risk of assault or some kind of violence?

T.W., Long Beach

A:  Property owners  not just owners of sports arenas by any means — have an obligation to keep their premises safe.  If an owner knows or has reason to know of an unsafe condition, which then gives rise to an injury or loss, the owner can be held liable.  In addition, if the owner is careless and does not take steps to keep the premises safe (such as, lets the steps to the second floor become so worn a falling hazard is created), then liability may be imputed.

The owner of a ball park or arena, theater or similar venue, is required to maintain a reasonably secure environment.  For example, adequate lighting, sufficient security presence under the circumstances, inside and outside (such as the parking lot), and probable screening of the patrons.

To be clear, a property owner is not required to guarantee — your safety there, and not all acts of a criminal nature are foreseeable or of a kind that the owner will necessarily be liable if harm arises.  But, the law does seek to provide a level of protection for “invitees,” persons like you and your grand child, attending an event in a ball park.

Q:  What about the protective netting at baseball parks?  Is it really sufficient to protect against a ball or even a bat that get loose and may fly into the crowd? I just read about a lawsuit in California that tried to bring claims about inadequate netting but it was dismissed.

C.N., Los Angeles

A:  Assumption of the risk is a well established legal doctrine, and a typical defense if someone is injured by an errant baseball while sitting in the stands. Assumption of risk means the harm arose from a peril that could be anticipated (such as, there is an assumption of the risk or peril when you ski, or parachute out of a plane).  But, the doctrine is not going to protect against conduct that is so outside the ordinary conduct associated with that activity.  Thus, if a player throws his bat at someone, misses him but it hits a spectator, that player is liable.

As to the case you mention, which was dismissed, the Court ordered limited discovery focused on the issue of “the probability that a given individual, seated in… specific sections at the two California stadiums in question, will be hit a stray ball or bat…”

The data was significant:  It showed a foul ball injury rate of just 0.0027% (this was at the Oakland Coliseum), and only 0.018% probability of being hit where one of the plaintiffs used to sit at Dodger Stadium.

There was competing information provided, and  the Court did acknowledge spectator injuries can be quite severe.  Further, Major League Baseball was criticized for not highlighting the risk to parents of kids.  Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that “allegations of possible future injury” are insufficient, noted the data that suggests very limited risk of harm, and ultimately dismissed the case.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 35 years of experience. His column, which appears on Wednesdays, presents a summary of the law and should not be construed as legal advice. Email questions and comments to him at RonSEsq@aol.com.