A spectator at a baseball game is injured by a stray foul ball. The stadium had posted clear warnings about the possibility of such incidents and provided safety nets in high-risk areas, but the spectator chose to sit in an unprotected zone close to the field. Can the defense of assumption of risk be used by the stadium to avoid liability for the injury?
Yes, because the stadium took reasonable precautions through warnings and protective measures in some areas.
Yes, because the spectator chose to sit in an unprotected area, understanding the risk of foul ball injuries.
No, because the stadium has a duty to ensure the safety of all attendees near the field.
No, because safety nets in other areas imply the stadium did not provide adequate protections universally.
The defense of assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily engages in an activity with inherent risks. In this case, the spectator was aware of the warnings and chose to sit in an unprotected area, accepting the risk of a foul ball injury. Other answers are incorrect because they misinterpret the stadium's duty of care and the legal principle of foreseeability. The stadium met its duty by providing warnings and safety measures; assumption of risk focuses on the plaintiff's acceptance of the danger rather than the adequacy of broader safety measures.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'assumption of risk' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes 'reasonable precautions' in terms of liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the concept of a 'duty of care' apply to this situation?