I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium, Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also, Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium, Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. moves to dismiss because Mr. Lopez’s claim fails as a matter of law, since it lacks sufficient factual matter to render a finding of negligence.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On September 4, 2015, Mr. Lopez brought an action against Adelanto Stadium, Inc., who owns and maintains Adelanto Stadium, where the incident took place. Compl ¶ 13. Mr. Lopez is a season ticketholder and has attended games in the same area of the “executive club” numerous times in the past. Compl ¶ 15-17. Mr. Lopez is aware of other sections of the stadium that is protected by both vertical and horizontal safety netting and that the “executive club” is only protected by horizontal netting. Compl. ¶ 14. Mr. Lopez further alleges that he sustained a fractured left eye socket from impact sustained from a foul ball while in the “executive club” section. Compl ¶ 18.
III. ARGUMENT A. A Motion to Dismiss Should Be Granted Where the Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Awarded. In ruling upon the within 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, a Court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the Complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations and view them in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989). Also, a Court should not dismiss a Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) “unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) .
Dismissal, however, may be appropriate where the Complaint contains a detailed description of underlying facts, which fail to state a viable claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-109 (1976) . The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622, 677 (2009). B. Mr. Lopez Negligence Action Should Be Dismissed Because It Is Well-Settled That The Owner/Operator Of A Baseball Stadium Has “No Duty” To Warn And/or Protect Patrons From Batted Balls; And That The Danger Of Being Struck By A Batted Ball Is “Inherent” In The Game Of Baseball.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges negligence on the part of Defendant. In order to successfully plead a cause of action for negligence the pleader must plead facts, which demonstrate the following elements: a. A duty on the part of the defendant; b. A breach of that duty by the defendant; and c. Damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of duty by defendant In deciding whether to dismiss a Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) a Court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the Complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those allegations and view them in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989).
A Court should not dismiss the Complaint “unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Dismissal, however, may be appropriate where the Complaint contains a detailed description of underlying facts, which fail to state a viable claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-109 (1976). Plaintiff claims in his Complaint that Defendant was negligent in its failure to provide Plaintiff with a design of a stadium to provide a reasonably safe premises; in exposing Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm during professional baseball game; in negligently, not providing vertical and horizontal netting for the “executive club” section of the stadium.
As a result of such above described negligence, Plaintiff claims he was struck in the eye socket and injured by a foul ball hit by a High Desert Mavericks player who was at the time conducting and participating in a baseball game. Plaintiff’s claim of negligence rests on Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant had a duty to protect Plaintiff, a patron of Defendant, from being struck by a foul ball. As a matter of law, in the seminal case of Quinn v. Recreation Park Assn., 3 Cal.2d 725 (1935), the California Supreme Court attempted to accommodate the competing interests by stating: “‘With respect to the law governing cases of this kind, it has been generally held that one of the natural risks assumed by spectators attending professional games is that of being struck by batted or thrown balls; that the management is not required, nor does it undertake to insure patrons against injury from such source.
All that is required is the exercise of ordinary care to protect patrons against such injuries, and in doing so the management is not obliged to screen all seats, because . . . many patrons prefer to sit where their view is not obscured by a screen. Moreover, the management is not required to provide screened seats for all who may apply for them. The duty imposed by law is performed when screened seats are provided for as many as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion; and if . . . a spectator chooses to occupy an unscreened seat . . . [or is] unable to secure a screened seat and consequently occupies one that is not protected, he assumes the risk of being struck by thrown or batted balls; and if injured thereby is precluded from recovering damages therefor.'”. Id., at p. 729. The Quinn Case goes on to further state.
Since, it is well settled that the owner/operator of a baseball stadium has “no duty” to warn and/or protect patrons from batted balls; and that the danger of being struck by a batted ball is “inherent” in the game of baseball. In the instant case, plaintiff impliedly consented to take his own chances that he would not be injured. He voluntarily elected to sit in a seat which was clearly only protected with horizontal netting. Rather than request a seat in a section where injury was unlikely to occur, plaintiff chose to accept a highly sought after seat, “executive club”, close to the sphere of action, where the likelihood of foul balls entering this section remained a possibility.
He was sufficiently warned of the risk by common knowledge of the nature of the sport, in which the Plaintiff was well aware, being that he is a season ticket holder. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. was under no duty to do anything further to protect him from that hazard. This Court should conclude that Defendant did not owe a duty to Plaintiff and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons Defendant, Adelanto Stadium, Inc., respectfully pleads that this Court grant its Motion to Dismiss based on Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice Respectfully submitted
