In October 2001, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, Sparks argued that the Mets were negligent in that they had not properly protected him. The Appellate Division disagreed, citing to an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals in Davidoff v. Metropolitan Baseball Club, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 996, 475 N.Y.S.2d 367 (1984) wherein New York's highest court determined that a baseball stadium satisfies its duty to protect its patrons by erecting a screen behind home plate (the area where most foul balls are hit) and providing adequate seating in that area for all the fans that reasonably would have wanted protection from foul balls. Based on Davidoff, the Appellate Division ruled that the Mets had adequately protected Sparks by erecting the screen behind home plate and that they were not required to "be an insurer of the safety of spectators who choose to occupy unprotected areas."
An interesting postscript to Sparks is Cohen v. Sterling Mets, 17 Misc.3d 218, 840 N.Y.S.2d 527 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cty. 2007) a matter involving a vendor at Shea who was injured when he was struck by a fan who was diving for a t-shirt that had been launched into the stands. In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Hart of the Supreme Court, Queens County, ruled that launching t-shirts into the stands was similar to a baseball player's tossing a ball to the fans and that a person who was present in the scrum (vendor or spectator) assumes the risk of being struck by people who are scrambling to catch a souvenir - ball or shirt.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
No comments:
Post a Comment