Every year millions of fans stream through the turnstiles at major league baseball stadiums to cheer on their team, eat warm peanuts (or sushi) and enjoy being surrounded by like-minded fans.  Even Mets fans are excited for the possibilities of the season; after all, it is still pretty early in the year.  But there is one thing that fans generally don’t think about.  And that is a broken, sharp Maple Baseball Bat.

What Is Assumption Of The Risk?

Fans love getting a free memento of the game they attended, whether it is a bubblehead, a foul ball or even snagging a home run. Every year many items from the field fly into the stands, usually these items are relatively harmless, but occasionally, a shattered bat will land in the stands.  When this happens, someone usually is hurt and sues.  The problem is, even if you are injured, you have to show that you did not “assume the risk.”

Basically, assumption of the risk means that you know and understand the risk and the fact that something bad could happen, but you still take part in the activity.  For years, many claims have been dismissed under the assumption of the risk, and most recently, a judge in Manhattan dismissed a claim brought by a man whose injuries included multiple facial fractures, including a broken palate as his son looked on.

Can You Sue If Dangerous Products Are Used During A Game?

Perhaps the most minute, but legally interesting, part of this case is that the bat was made from maple, not ash.  Not long ago, most major league players used bats made of Northern Ash, which were much less likely to break and shatter.  This leaves the question about whether the type of equipment used should pave the way for a potential lawsuit.  Obviously, if you go to a hockey game, there’s a chance you might be hit with a puck, but if that puck is an experimental puck designed to get more lift (i.e. to fly a bit higher after being hit at a high rate of speed), can you sue since you didn’t know about the risk?

The courts are unclear about how far “assumption of the risk” can save a company, but one thing is for certain, you should be careful when you enter a baseball park.

What do you think?  Is it fair that a company can avoid a lawsuit, even if the equipment used is more likely to injure spectators?