-taylor went to a Seattle mariners baseball game with her two minor sons and boyfriend

-they arrived early to see the players warm up and get autographs

-mariners pitcher was throwing ball back and forth with another player right in front of their seats

-as Taylor stood in front of her seat, she looked away from the field, and a ball thrown by the player hit her in the face causing injury

- she sued the mariners for the allegedly negligent throw

-mariners filed a motion for summary judgement saying Taylor was familiar with baseball and the risk of balls entering the stands

-trial court granted the motion and dismissed Taylors case

-taylor appealed

issue

was Taylor valid in suing for negligence

- assumption of the risk

rule

-duty, breach, causation of damages (negligence)

- where one volitionally assumes the risk or danger involved (assumption of risk)

analysis

-there is no evidence that the circumstances leading to Taylors injury constituted an unusual danger

-the risk of injuries such as Taylors are within the normal comprehension of a spectator who is familiar with the game

- as a spectator who chose to sit in an unprotected area of seats, Taylor voluntarily undertook the risk associated with being hit by an errant baseball thrown during the warm up before the game

courts conclusion

-the state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower courts judgement

-in favor of defendant

Was the appellate court correct in this ruling? Why?What was the defense that was offered by the respondent ?Do you think that the ruling would have been different if indeed, it did involve a minor rather than an adult?What might be the ramification if spectators could recover damages for injuries that are sustained at sporting events?