Jim Cash sat in a seat six rows behind the dugout at a Maine Bears baseball game. Between the third and fourth innings, Sluggerr, the team mascot, performed the "Hot Dog Launch," a promotional event in which hot dogs are launched by an air gun or by hand at the fans. The event has been going on in the stadium for nine years without incident.

At one point during the launch, Sluggerr was in front of Cash when spectators behind him started yelling for Sluggerr to throw hot dogs to them. Cash turned to look at the scoreboard, and a second later a hot dog hit him in the face. Cash suffered a torn and detached retina, requiring surgery and an artificial lens.

Cash sued the Maine Bears Baseball Club for battery and negligence. The corporation admitted that the individual playing Sluggerr was its agent and employee acting in the scope of his employment. Under the implied assumption of risk doctrine, is the risk of being hit by a flying hot dog inherent to the game of baseball? If Cash chose to sit close to the baseball field and for a second looked away from Sluggerr launching hot dogs, is that evidence of comparative negligence on the part of Cash?