Assumption of Risk: Soccer Denied Protection… America’s Pastime Still Safe?
The ruling Monday by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc. throws a bit of a monkeywrench into the long standing doctrine that “there is no legal duty to protect or warn spectators about the ‘common, frequent, and expected’ inherent risks of observing a sporting event such as being struck by flying objects that go into the stands.” (Allred at P.7, quoting Marquette Sports Law Review). In this case the Plaintiff, Teresa Allred, was attending a women’s professional soccer match (betcha didn’t know that existed, did you?) and was struck in the head by an errant shot during warmups while she was sitting in the stands. Ms. Allred was injured; unfortunately, the case doesn’t identify the extent of her injuries. In true American fashion, she sued the soccer league for negligence…
The trial court dismissed the case by applying the traditional rule outlined above. The most common application of the “No Duty” rule is applied in baseball. The analysis is pretty simple. Attendees at baseball games understand that there is a risk that they may be struck by an errant ball and assume the associated risk. The are presumed to understand the risk, because it is so patently obvious from the nature of the game that a ball could fly into the stands and hit someone. Even more simply — It’s America’s pastime, everyone understands it.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court and reversed the decision, sending the case back to the trial court to continue. The simple reason – soccer is NOT America’s pastime. Ok, it was a little more than that. …but not much. The Court of Appeals stated that it may not be true “that a reasonable person attending a soccer match would possess such particularized knowledge” so as to understand the risk. (Allred at P.13). Really? Is it not pretty obvious that a soccer ball could fly into the stands? Sure, soccer isn’t America’s pastime, but the last time I checked there were more kids in America playing youth soccer than any other sport. Soccer Mom, anyone? Seems to me that this court may be a bit out of touch. Americans may not intimately understand soccer, but they certainly know that there is no Star Wars-style deflector shield keeping the ball out of the stands.
In all seriousness, I feel bad for Ms. Allred, but genuinely hope that this ruling does not stand. The traditional rule is a good one and was established for good reasons that apply equally well to soccer and baseball. To further erode the protection provided to sports leagues and facility owners does nothing but artificially increase the cost of the sport. And we all know that increased costs just result in higher ticket and merchandise prices for the fans.
Oh, I almost forgot… Guess where Ms. Allred was sitting? …In the stands directly behind the goal, or course!
Agree, disagree, or think my writing stinks? Let me hear about it.
Matt Breeden (SportsLawGuru.com) is an internationally respected business advisor and attorney based in Indianapolis, IN. His practice is focused on Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Commercial and Corporate Law. He represents Sports & Entertainment properties, as well as many other businesses, in a variety of matters, including: Broadcast & Digital Media Agreements, Licensing Agreements, Sponsorship Agreements, Commercial Agreements, Athlete/Driver Contracts, Insurance & Risk Management, Employment Agreements, Litigation Management, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Formation and Corporate Governance.
Matt, I’m the attorney that brought this case on behalf of Ms. Allred. I certainly respect your opinion, but there is some things you are missing here.
The court also noted that in the baseball cases, there IS a duty to put protection for patrons behind home plate. Why? Because that is the most dangerous part of the stands and spectators cannot be reasonably expected to be able to avoid the ball in that area, especially when coming off a foul tip. As long as stadium owners put up nets/fence, or other protection there, they are off the hook.
Here, the most dangerous spots in the stadium, as you noted, are immediately behind the goals. There were no nets or protection of any kind, and the goals are 10 feet from the seats.
Next, Ms. Allred was not sitting in the stands. This happened during pre-game warmups, and she was passing through that area as it was the only way to get to her seats. She had to watch where she was walking, and could not do that and watch the field at the same time. Had she tried and fallen, I’m sure the defense would have asked why she wasn’t looking where she was going.
Further, during warmups, several players kick the ball at the goal at one time. This is obviously different from game play where there is only one ball to track, usually while you are sitting and actually able to watch the field. These balls travel at speeds of around 60 mph when coming off the foot of the likes of Mia Hamm.
Finally, what’s fair? This woman and her family have been greatly effected, as she suffered a closed head injury that ended a bright career and future for a very intelligent and gifted woman, and she suffers monthly with the after-effects of this injury. The stadium costs multiple millions of dollars to build. The game was pro, not Johnny playing the neighbor kids, and the players (Time Warner, etc) were not in it for “kicks”, they were in it for money. Less than $500 (or $1000 depending on who you ask) would have put nets behind both goals, and everyone would be protected. $500 bucks balanced against people’s lives. Sorry, the minimum standard of baseball should apply here as well — nets behind the goals are required, weren’t there, and the only thing left for Ms. Allred is a court battle she surely would like to forget about — she just wanted to watch a little soccer.
Hi Matt!
Interesting subject… If I take the other position, let’s say that:
a) The lady saw pre-game going on… and saw the players kicking balls at the same time;
b) Certainly other balls went in the stands…
c) She did not go there unaware of the game: anyone going one place will have an objective and know what they are looking for… going shopping, or dinner or sports game. All the same: you know at least a minimum of the “risks”…
d) The lady was not there alone… the person with her at least knew the game… she had a minimum of knowledge of the game and of the risks…
e) If the lady had a hard time going back to her seat, why she did not wait after the practice? She saw the conditions of the local venue… she cannot think before putting herself at risk?
f) The lady has no judgment… she does not have the obligation to take care of her?
g) As a hockey fan… when I go to an outside ice rink during winter, there is no fences all around… and I check the pucks during the practices and during the game!
h) Which party has most responsibilities: the lady for herself or the promoter for all spectators?
Anyhow, its a fun one, the type of case I would like to read about on your Web Site!
Like the one with Gerry-Kevin and my ex partner… Elliot… looks like a lot of fun, they are restarting from scratch!
A+ France
Hey France,
Good to see your here, and good points as usual. I tend to agree. The ice hockey comparison is spot on. Thanks for reading.