Kansas City’s Contribution to the Jurisprudence of Foul Ball Injuries

The weather was fair and warm on May 31, 1911, as the first place Kansas City Blues prepared for a morning/afternoon doubleheader against their American Association rival Milwaukee Brewers. The Blues won that double-header at Association Park, but the more lasting consequence of the double win was the legal precedent set because of a fan injury during one of the games.

While to was a good day for the Blues, it was a bad day for Blues’ fan C.A. Edling. It was a very bad day. C.A. Edling purchased an unreserved ticket for 50 cents and looked for a place to sit. Association Park, by most accounts was crowded, as temporary bleachers were added tot he already existing grandstand and bleachers. Mr. Edling found his seat behind home plate and he was protected only by “an old rotten and worn” chicken screen netting. A foul ball traveled through the netting and smashed Edling by his left eye. The blow produced a swollen eye and a broken nose, and Edling sued the Blued in negligence for not using ordinary care in the maintenance of the screen.

Edling had several legal theories for recovery. He could sue for breach of contract and maybe recover his 50 cents. Edling instead sued in tort (a non-contractual civil wrong). There are three types of torts: Intentional (eg battery, conversion, defamation, etc.), Negligence (defendant does not act with reasonable/ordinary care) or finally he could sue in strict liability (defendant is in control of an inherently dangerous condition, such as dynamite or dangerous animals, and the plaintiff can recover his damages without having to rove the defendant’s negligence.).

Baseball players can not, normally, direct batted balls and intentionally hurt spectators, nor is baseball an inherently dangerous spectator sport. Therefore, Edling sued the Blues in negligence for not using ordinary care in the maintenance of the screen. In tort, unlike contract, a plaintiff can receive punitive damages and more likely recover consequential damages.

Plaintiff Edling had to prove each element in the Prima Facie case in negligence.

1) The defendant owes a duty to the injured plaintiff.

2) The defendant breached that duty.

3) The defendant’s breach was the direct and foreseeable cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

Even if the plaintiff can meet the above requirements, the defendant has several defenses. The defendant could show that the plaintiff was at fault through contributory/comparative negligence or that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.

The Edling court had to rely upon a previous Kansas City case Crane v Kansas City Baseball + Exhibition Co., 168 Mo. App. 301, 153 S.W. 1076 (1913). Crane paid 50 cents for a grandstand seat for a Blues morning/afternoon doubleheader. Although history did not record which game Crane attended, legal history noted Crane and its Kansas City progenies, as important legal precedents. Crane announced that baseball clubs are not insurers to the fans. Just as in any entertainment media, baseball must exercise ordinary care towards their patrons. This care is measured by the ball club providing screened seats from wild throws and batted balls for fans who desire such protection. The Blues in Crane met their Prima Facie duty to Crane by providing this option to Crane. Even if Crane could make the Prima Facie case against the Blues, the blues could employ their negligence defenses. The court held that Crane had “common knowledge” concerning the national game, and therefore Crane assumed the risk for the known dangers. In fact, Crane’s selection of his seat CONTRIBUTED to his injuries.

This was a difficult challenge for Edling. He claimed that the Blues failed to meet their duty to him by not providing a screen free from defects. The Blues’ failure to maintain the screen was the proximate cause of his eye and nose injuries. In addition, the court also held that the Blues had no defenses. Edling neither assumed the risk of a defective screen, nor was this fan contributory negligent. In fact, this appellate court cited Edling’s trial attorney, when the attorney stated,

“If the Kansas City Blues had kept their eyes on the ball with the accuracy defendant says plaintiff should have displayed, they would have attained a higher place in the race for the pennant.” (see Edling v. Kansas City Baseball + Exhibition Co., 168 S.W. 908 at page 910)

Edling is one of the few cases where plaintiffs have successfully sued baseball (Crane is the more likely outcome). But both the Crane and the Edling cases have become precedents for more nationally known cases (see Quinn v Recreation Park, 3 Cal. 2d 725, 46 P. 2d 144 (1935) for Edling, and Wells v Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass’n, 122 Minn 327, 142 NW 706 (1913) for Crane). Although foul balls have continued to find the anatomy of Kansas City baseball fans, only two more Kansas City cases have made important contributions to the jurisprudence of foul ball injuries.

In Hudson v Kansas City Baseball Club, Inc., 349 Mo 1215, 164 SW2d 318 (1942) Eugene L. Hudson, a near-sighted 64-year -old Blues fan, attended a Blues Indianapolis Indians doubleheader on July 28, 1940. While the Blues won the doubleheader, Hudson suffered several disappointments. The Blues fans had expected Johnny Vander Meer to pitch a rehabilitation assignment with the Indians and protested his absence. Although the records do not indicate that Hudson attended the doubleheader to see Vander Meer, he did suffer the pain and indignity of foul ball injury in his unscreened grandstand seat. Hudson argued that the Blues were negligent since the defendant did not meet the ordinary care standard under Crane and Edling. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Blues met these standards despite Hudson’s claim of special circumstances.

Hudson expected a screened seat since he purchased a grandstand seat. In addition, the Blues should have been aware of his advancing age and nearsightedness. These special circumstances, claimed Hudson, put the Blues on notice of providing Hudson a screened seat or notifying him that he was sitting in an unscreened area. While the court did not agree with the “common knowledge” standard announced in Crane, they held that Hudson had “actual knowledge” of the conditions and hazards of baseball games. Just because Hudson was “confused” as to his location, the court reasoned that this confusion did not equate to a duty on the part of the Blues.

In the final Kansas City case, Betty Anderson attended a Ladies Night at Blues Stadium on September 6, 1947. History records two expected events. A Blues victory (8-3 over St. Paul) coupled with an injured spectator. Anderson claimed that an usher switched her from a reserved screened seat to an unscreened seat. Also, the usher stated to the plaintiff Anderson that hundreds sit safely in this section every day. Betty reasoned that she relied on the usher’s assurances of safety. The Supreme Court of Missouri disagreed, and stated that the usher’s statements were the equivalent to stating that fans must think that those particular unscreened seats are safe since this was where the other fans chose to sit. The usher’s statements were not guarantees.

The Court believed that the Blues met their ordinary care duty to Anderson by providing screened seats for as many patrons who may reasonably be expected to desire screened seating (see Crane and Edling) and by providing screened seating to the portions of the stands which are most frequently subject to the hazards of foul balls (behind home plate). The Court correctly reasoned that the Blues owed no duty to warn every entering spectator of the hazards of the game! (See Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 S.W. 2d 170 (1950).)

In conclusion, a fan injured by wild throws or batted balls will have little chance of winning a lawsuit. The ball club can either attack the plaintiff-fan’s prima facie case or use their negligence defenses. For instance, a ball club can meet its Prima Facie duty by providing screened seating for a reasonable number of patrons who might request screened seating, screening the most dangerous part of the park (home plate) or providing a warning on the ticket, scoreboard, etc. Even if a plaintiff-fan could meet all the elements of the Prima Facie case, the ball club could always resort to the assumption of the risk defense.

There is a suggestion by legal scholars that an injured fan should be able to sue in strict liability! In this scenario the plaintiff-fan could argue that an improperly designed ballpark is inherently dangerous.

Injured fans could sue without the proof of the ball club’s negligence. This legal argument states that the ball clubs are in the best position to protect the fan from expected injuries with a design change or with insurance coverage. The more likely outcome is that an injured Kansas City fan has little recourse but he/she can take solace in that a foul ball injury is historically coupled with a Kansas City victory!