Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp.
394 A.2d 546 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
Facts
Evelyn M. Jones attended a baseball game at Three Rivers Stadium on its inaugural day, July 16, 1970. She was standing in an interior concourse, or walkway, behind the seating area, near large openings built into the wall above right field that allowed patrons to look onto the field. The stadium's design required pedestrians to divert their attention from the walkway to view the field. Jones approached an opening, scanned the field, saw activity but was unaware that batting practice had begun. As she turned away from the field to return to the concession area, she heard a cry of "Watch!" and was immediately struck in the eye by a batted ball. Jones had previously attended games at Forbes Field where patrons were not exposed to batted balls in walkways.
Procedural history
Appellant Jones brought a trespass action in the Court of Common Pleas, where a jury found appellees negligent and awarded damages. The trial court denied appellees' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Superior Court reversed, holding appellant failed to establish a prima facie case and remanded for entry of judgment n.o.v. This court granted allowance of appeal and now reverses the Superior Court.
Issue
Does the "no-duty" rule, which applies to common and expected risks inherent in baseball, govern a spectator's injury from a batted ball while standing in an interior stadium walkway, or do ordinary negligence rules apply?
Holding
The Superior Court erred in applying the "no-duty" rule to the appellant in the walkway, and the jury's verdict finding the appellees negligent is reinstated.
Rule
Operators of amusement facilities must exercise reasonable care in their construction, maintenance, and management, but are not insurers of their patrons. The "no-duty" rule applies only to risks that are common, frequent, and expected occurrences inherent in the activity, which spectators must anticipate. This rule does not extend to foreseeably dangerous conditions not inherent in the amusement activity, such as structural features that divert attention and expose patrons to unexpected risks. For non-inherent risks, ordinary negligence rules apply, requiring possessors of land to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, even from obvious dangers if harm should be anticipated.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.