19 Aug No Negligence Found When Spectator Injured By Foul Ball

The Plaintiff in Rivers v. North Vancouver (District), 2020 BCSC 1050, was watching his teenage son play baseball when he was struck on the back of the head by a foul ball that came from an adjacent baseball diamond. He suffered a head injury as a result and sued multiple parties for damages arising from his injuries.

The Defendants applied to the court to have the action against them dismissed. The Plaintiff opposed their application. The sole issue for determination by the court at the summary trial was whether the Defendants were liable.

There was no record of anybody being struck by a ball at that particular ball park, nor any complaints concerning safety at the baseball diamonds. The Plaintiff did provide evidence that foul balls frequently cleared the backstops at those fields, and less frequently landed in the bleachers where he had been sitting. The Defendants countered that foul balls clearing backstops was common in senior boys’ baseball, and occurred at virtually all baseball diamonds. They were unaware of any unique risk factors specific to this particular ball park.

The judge noted that there was a degree of inherent risk in the activity of baseball viewing.  Balls routinely left the field of play.  Spectators had to be alive to that possibility, and alert enough to take evasive action if necessary.

The judge found that there was a generally known, but minimal, risk of foul balls from one diamond landing in the bleachers of the other diamond.  The spectators who sat in those bleachers relied on warning calls to alert them of errant baseballs, and such warnings were generally effective.  In this instance, there was a warning call, but the Plaintiff did not hear it.

The Defendants filed a report prepared by an architect who designed sports and recreational facilities. His opinion was that the ball park diamonds were consistent with industry standards for player and spectator safety, and met or exceeded the standard of baseball diamond design across Canada.

The claim against the one of the Defendants was based partly on an alleged failure to keep and maintain the premises in a manner that ensured the safety of spectators at the baseball games. The law requires an occupier to take reasonable steps to render the premises reasonably safe. However, an occupier is not expected to safeguard those entering premises from every conceivable risk of injury, no matter how remote.

The judge considered whether any steps should have been taken to make the premises safer for spectators, such as posting warning signs, covering the bleachers or moving home plate closer to the backstop.  He decided that none of those steps was required.  If there had been prior instances of people being struck by foul balls, there might have been a duty to post signs, or close or cover the bleachers.  In the absence of such incidents or even complaints of near misses, the judge could not impose that duty on the Defendant.

The judge concluded that this incident had been an accident; something that happened unexpectedly and unintentionally.  There was no breach of a duty of care, or indeed any actionable negligence, on the part of any of the Defendants.  The case was dismissed against the Defendants and they were entitled to costs payable by the Plaintiff.