What is the “Baseball Rule” in Injury Cases?
In a personal injury action, a plaintiff sued the Atlanta Braves and one of its players (the “defendants”) after the plaintiff was struck and injured by a baseball during a game. She was struck with a ball thrown by a player to fans as a souvenir. The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the trial court erred by determining that their claims were barred by the “Baseball Rule.”
Background
The plaintiff alleged that on October 29, 2021, she attended a World Series game between the Braves and the Houston Astros at Truist Park. She sat in a section in the right field corner of the stadium. The complaint didn’t say if she sat in an area of the stadium protected by netting. Before the game resumed in the fifth inning, the Braves right-fielder threw a baseball “overhand, with great force, speed, and intensity” in the plaintiff’s “immediate direction.” She didn’t have time “to react or to avoid impact from the ball.” She claimed that the game wasn’t in play at the time and that the player’s throw was neither incidental to the game nor a warm-up between the players. The complaint alleged that the baseball struck her in her right eye, and she sustained multiple fractures, a right eye edema, and an infra-orbital abrasion.
The plaintiff filed this action, asserting premises liability and vicarious liability claims against the Braves and the player, and they answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The defendants argued that the “Baseball Rule” barred their claims since spectators assume the risk of being injured by a baseball at a baseball game. The trial court found that the plaintiff’ claims were barred by the Baseball Rule which “applies to all risks inherent to unprotected seats at a baseball stadium.” The court reasoned that “souvenir baseballs thrown into the crowd are clearly inherent to the game of baseball, and being struck by one is an inherent risk for those in the plaintiff’s position.” As such, the trial court concluded that the player’s throw was an inherent risk to the area in which plaintiff chose to sit at Truist Park during a live ballgame, and, as a result, the Baseball Rule applies and bars plaintiff’ claims.” This appeal followed.
The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by:
- Applying the Baseball Rule to all risks inherent to unprotected seats at a baseball stadium;
- Applying the Baseball Rule to intentional and reckless misconduct of baseball players between innings; and
- Interpreting and applying the Baseball Rule in a broad manner so as to violate public policy.
The Court of Appeals rules the Baseball Rule may not apply to intentionally thrown balls that strike fans
The Georgia Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by determining that the Baseball Rule barred the plaintiff’ claims at the motion to dismiss stage. Judge Jeff Davis wrote that it’s well established that to recover for injuries caused by another’s negligence, a plaintiff must show four elements: a duty, a breach of that duty, causation and damages.
The judge explained that in a premises liability claim, the owner or occupier of land owes a duty to an invitee to keep the premises and approaches safe. To recover on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier. As to vicarious liability, when a servant causes an injury to another, the test to determine if the master is liable is whether or not the servant was at the time of the injury acting within the scope of his employment and on the business of the master.
Here, the plaintiff alleged that the Braves had exclusive ownership, possession, and control over the stadium. According to the plaintiff, the defendants breached their duties when the player threw the baseball “overhand” “with a great deal of speed and force” in the plaintiff’s direction while he was acting within the scope of his employment with the Braves, thereby causing her substantial injury. Thus, construing the complaint in the plaintiff’ favor, Judge Davis said it was apparent that within the framework of the allegations the plaintiff may be able to introduce evidence to establish their negligence, premises liability, and vicarious liability claims; as a result, the trial court erred by dismissing these claims.
As a consequence, the trial court concluded that the claims were due to be dismissed pursuant to the so-called “Baseball Rule.” In the context of liability for injuries sustained at a baseball game, the Court of Appeals has stated that—
one who buys a ticket for the purpose of witnessing a baseball game and who chooses or accepts a seat in a portion of the grandstand which his own observation will readily inform him is unprotected, voluntarily assumes the risks inherent in such a position, since he must be presumed to know that there is a likelihood of wild balls being thrown and landing in the grandstand or other unprotected areas.
But a search of Georgia caselaw didn’t uncovered any precedent pronouncing any special rule or analysis for courts to employ in analyzing negligence claims premised on injuries received at a baseball game, and Judge Davis was unaware of any authority from the Supreme Court of Georgia requiring courts to employ any particular test in analyzing such negligence claims.
Instead, in its simplest terms, this “Baseball Rule” is merely a specific application of the assumption of risk doctrine concerning risks inherent to baseball games, which is an affirmative defense. The assumption of risk doctrine bars a plaintiff from recovering on a negligence claim if it is established that the plaintiff, without coercion of circumstances, chooses a course of action with full knowledge of its danger and while exercising a free choice as to whether to engage in the act or not. A defendant asserting an assumption of the risk defense must establish that the plaintiff:
- Had actual knowledge of the danger;
- Understood and appreciated the risks associated with such danger; and
- Voluntarily exposed himself to those risks.
Knowledge of the risk means that the plaintiff has both actual and subjective knowledge of the specific, particular risk of harm associated with the activity or condition that proximately causes injury.
Judge Davis found that none of the elements of the assumption of risk defense were admitted in the complaint or disclosed on the face of complaint. There was no allegation in the complaint to indicate that the plaintiff had knowledge of the danger that a baseball could be thrown “overhand, with great force, speed, and intensity” in the plaintiff’s direction when the game wasn’t in play. Furthermore, there was nothing in the complaint to indicate that the plaintiff understood and appreciated the risk of a baseball being thrown in the plaintiff’s immediate direction when the game was not in play and that they voluntarily exposed themselves to this risk. Consequently, the pleadings didn’t conclusively establish the defendants’ assumption of the risk defense so as to authorize a dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint at the motion to dismiss stage.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Norris v. Atlanta Braves, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 382, 2025 LX 394726 (Ga. App. September 12, 2025).
Like the Braves and still have questions? Call us
Talk with an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust. Our team can help. You’re welcome to reach out to any of us, at any time.