.
LITTLE LEAGUER ASSUMES RISK OF ERRANT PITCH INJURY

BALTHAZOR v. LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
March 12, 1998

In this case, plaintiff Ryan Balthazor and his mother sued Saddleback Little League and Little League Baseball, Inc., (collectively the "League") for injuries sustained by Balthazor when he was struck by a wild pitch during a baseball game. The trial court granted the League's request for summary judgment, concluding recovery was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Balthazor and his mother appealed contending "the League increased the risks inherent in the game." The facts of the case were as follows:

On April 3, 1991, 11-year-old Balthazor was playing in a League-sponsored baseball game. The record does not reflect when the game began, but the teams were still playing at 6:00 p.m. Balthazor's mother testified it was a clear day and the sun was up when the game began, but it was getting difficult to see when Balthazor went to bat around 6:10 p.m. The field had no lights. An almanac indicated the sun set at 6:13 p.m.

Balthazor wore the standard uniform required by the League, which included a batting helmet without a face guard. He ducked to avoid being hit by the first pitch from the 15-year-old pitcher. The second pitch struck him in the face, causing serious injuries. It is undisputed that the pitch was thrown without the intent to hit Balthazor, although the pitcher had previously struck two other players during the game.

On appeal, Balthazor contended that "the trial court erred in finding his injuries were the result of a risk inherent in the sport of baseball, and are barred under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk." As defined by the appeals court, "Assumption of risk falls into two categories: primary and secondary,"

Primary assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily engages in a sport or activity with inherent risks. It embodies those instances where there is a legal conclusion that there is no duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from that particular risk. Secondary assumption of risk embodies those instances in which the defendant does owe a duty of care to the plaintiff but the plaintiff knowingly encounters a risk of injury caused by the defendant's breach of that duty...

We look to the nature of the activity or sport in which the defendant is engaged and the relationship of the defendant and the plaintiff to that activity or sport to determine if a defendant owes a duty to protect a plaintiff from the particular risk of harm...

[I]n the heat of an active sporting event like baseball or football, a participant's normal energetic conduct often includes accidentally careless behavior... [It would, therefore, be] improper to hold a sports participant liable to a co-participant for ordinary careless conduct committed during the sport - for example, for an injury resulting from a carelessly thrown ball or bat during a baseball game. Instead, liability should attach only when the defendant has increased the "risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the court found this particular situation did not involve "co-participants in a sport." Rather, the court found "this case involves a youthful player and the organization sponsoring the game."

Since the League has supervisory control over the game, through the volunteer coaches and umpires, the relationship here is similar to that of a student and teacher or coach and player, and cases arising in that context are most instructive...[I]nstructors have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. An instructor is not an insurer of the student's safety... [However,] when an instructor acts so as to increase the risk of harm inherent in a particular sport, the instructor may not thereafter rely on primary assumption of risk.

In this particular instance, Balthazor contended that "the League breached its duty not to increase the risks inherent in baseball." Specifically, Balthazor had argued that "the League negligently supervised the game by failing to end it as sunset approached." In so doing, Balthazor contended that "diminished lighting increased the risk of being hit by the ball." The appeals court rejected this argument.

Baseball is played under various lighting conditions, even during the day. On a bright sunny day, the position of the ball relative to the sun can result in an increased risk of being hit by either a thrown or batted ball. Changing lighting conditions are inherent in the sport. It was not dark when the injury occurred, the sun had not set, and Balthazor admitted he saw and avoided the first pitch. Balthazor's injury was simply a result of an inherent risk in the sport.

In the opinion of the appeals court, "Balthazor's second contention is even more tenuous":

He claims the League was negligent in failing to remove the "wild pitcher" from the game because he had earlier struck two other players. Accuracy in pitching, especially from a teenager, has never been a prerequisite to being allowed to pitch. Even major league pitchers and managers frequently rue a loss due to "those bases on balls." To so hold would be to alter the fundamental nature of the game and most certainly chill vigorous participation.

Finally, Balthazor claimed "the League had a duty to reduce the risk of injury from being struck by a baseball by providing helmets with faceguards." The appeals court rejected this argument.

Under primary assumption of risk, the defendant has a duty not to increase the risks inherent in the sport, not a duty to decrease the risks... Here, the faceguard which Balthazor argues should have been required was not part of the normal safety equipment used by the League. The League's failure to require additional equipment did not increase a risk inherent in the sport: that a player might be struck by a carelessly thrown ball.

As characterized by the appeals court, each legal duty alleged by Balthazor was "in reality a normal aspect of Little League baseball as played by youngsters everywhere." Moreover, the court found "[t]here was nothing done in this game, no specific acts or directions given by League officials, which increased the risk of injury beyond that present in any other game." As a result, the court concluded that Balthazor had "failed to assert any basis for finding that the League breached a duty to protect him from the injury sustained." Since the "injury resulted from an errant pitch, a risk inherent in the sport," the appeals court found the League owed no duty to prevent plaintiff's injury based upon primary assumption of risk. The appeals court, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants.