<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mozo1:
At my son's little league complex there are two fields next to each other. Yesterday before his scheduled game, he and another teammate went over to the unused field and started a pickup game. This field is adjacent to the parking lot. To make a long story short, while they were playing on this field by themselves, a foul ball was hit and spiderwebbed a windshield on a car that had parked close to this particular field. It was clearly an accident but of course, the liability issue came up. My son issued a cursury apology, but not enough to the owners satisfaction. After the game I had him apologize to the owner once again. The owner had wanted my cell phone number that he my son could not provide. My son was never discourteous to the owner, but secondhand, it got back to the owner that my son had said that he was not going to pay for that "piece of crap car". He denies that, but that is what was accused...please understand that this was at 5pm, after a full day at school, weight training sessions and now to the park with no dinner after a full weekend...he may have said something out of being tired to his buddies, but that was it.. that being the case, the owner of the car says that I am responsible to repair the window, even though she admits it was an accident. She was more upset at the comment about her car than the damage itself. So I asked her.."Does my personal liability in this incident increase, because of a secondhand comment made by my son?, and she said ..."yes"..remember, the kids were on the field at all times and were not playing in the parking lot....Where do I stand?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
Not only are YOU not liable for damages, but neither is your son.
You stated that the ballfield and parking lot are adjacent to one another. If that's the case, car owner knew, or should and could have known, that an errant ball could strike her car. This is called primary assumption of the risk.
In Ratcliff v. San Diego Baseball Club (1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 733 ..., a baseball spectator was injured when, walking in the stands between home plate and first base during a game, she was hit by an accidentally thrown bat. She sued both the player who threw the bat and the baseball stadium owner. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the player, but found the stadium owner liable....
"... [T]he court implicitly recognized that two different potential duties were at issue—(1) the duty of the ballplayer to play the game without carelessly throwing his bat, and (2) the duty of the stadium owner to provide a reasonable safe stadium with regard to the relatively common (but particularly dangerous) hazard of a thrown bat. Because each defendant's liability rested on a separate duty, there was no inconsistency in the jury verdict absolving the batter of liability but imposing liability on the stadium owner for its failure to provide the patron 'protection from flying bats, at least in the area where the greatest danger exists and where such an occurrence is reasonably to be expected.' [Citation.]" (Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal.4th 296, 317.)
In Knight vs. Jewett, supra, that court also ruled concerning "secondary assumption of the risk." That is, if the Ball Park was not designed properly, then car owner would not necessarily know about design and errant balls; e.g., is a fence high enough to protect against hit balls into the parking lot?
The only party that could possibly be a fault is the ball park owner, on a "secondary" theory of liability.
The car owner, by parking where she did, knew, or should and could have known, that the "empty ball park" could be used in a "pick up game" at any time, and that a foul ball is part of the game of baseball.
You son is off the hook.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
