Rountree V. Boise Baseball, LLC Appellant's Brief Dckt. 38966

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Idaho College of Law UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 3-8-2012 Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC Appellant's Brief Dckt. 38966 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/ idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs Recommended Citation "Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC Appellant's Brief Dckt. 38966" (2012). Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs. 3722. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/3722 This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO BUD ROUNTREE, PlaintifflRespondent, Docket No. 38966 vs. APPELLANTS' BRIEF BOISE BASEBALL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation d.b.a. Bosie Baseball, d.b.a. Boise Baseball Club d.b.a. Boise Hawks Baseball Club LLC, d.b.a. Boise Hawks, BOISE BASEBALL, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Corporation d.b.a Boise Baseball, d.b.a. Boise Baseball Club, d.b.a. Boise Hawks Baseball Club, LLC, d.b.a. Boise Hawks, BOISE HAWKS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, an assumed business name of Boise Baseball, LLC, HOME PLATE FOOD SERVICES, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Corporation, MEMORIAL STADIUM, INC., WRIGHT BROTHERS, THE BUILDING COMPANY, an Idaho General Business Corporation, TRIPLE P, INC., an Idaho general business corporation, DIAMOND SPORTS, INC., a New York Corporation, DIAMOND SPORT CORP., an Idaho corporation, DIAMOND SPORTS MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Corporation, CH2M HILL, INC., a Florida Corporation d.b.a. Ch2M Hill, CH2M HILL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. d.b.a. Ch2M Hill, CH2M HILL E&C, INC., d.b.a Ch2M Hill, CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. d.b.a. Ch2M Hill, CH2M HILL INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, an assumed business name of Ch2M Engineers, Inc., CH2M HILL, a foreign corporation doing business in Idaho under the name Ch2M Hill, WILLIAM CORD PEREIRA, ROBERT PEREIRA, and JOHN DOES I through X, whose true identities are unknown, Defendants/Appellants. APPELLANTS' BRIEF - BOISE BASEBALL, LLC, BOISE HAWKS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC AND HOME PLATE FOOD SERVICES, LLC Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada Honorable Darla Williamson, District Judge, Presiding Wm. Breck Seiniger, Jr., ISB #2387 Joshua S. Evett, ISB #5587 SEINIGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. Jade C. Stacey, ISB #8016 942 Myrtle Street ELAM & BURKE, P.A. Boise, Idaho 83702 251 E. Front Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 1539 Attorneys for PlaintifflRespondent Bud Boise, Idaho 83701 Rountree Telephone: (208) 343-5454 Facsimile: (208) 384-5844 Attorneys for Defendants/Appellants Boise Baseball, LLC, Boise Hawks Baseball Club, LLC and Home Plate Food Services, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ........................................ 111 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................. 1 A. Nature of the Case ................................................. 1 B. Statement of the Facts .............................................. 2 1. History of the Boise Hawks Baseball Club ........................ 2 2. Barrier Netting Configuration at Memorial Stadium ................. 3 3. Language on the Back of Boise Hawks Tickets ..................... 5 4. Bud Rountree's Accident on August 13, 2008 ..................... 6 5. History Leading Up to Bud Rountree's Accident on August 13, 2008 .. 10 C. Course of Proceedings ............................................. 17 II. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL ....................................... 20 A. Whether the district court erred in declining to adopt the limited duty rule, i.e., the baseball rule, and finding that Appellants complied with it .......... 20 B. Whether the district court erred in finding that primary implied assumption of risk is not a viable defense in Idaho, and that only written or oral consent under Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984, 695 P.2d 369 (1985) is a viable assumption of risk defense. ........................................ 20 III. ARGUMENT .......................................................... 20 A. Standard of Review ............................................... 20 -1- B. The District Court Erred in Declining to Adopt the Limited Duty Rule, i.e., the Baseball Rule, and Finding That the Appellants Complied With It ....... 21 1. Overview of the Limited Duty Rule ............................. 21 2. Ruffing v. Ada County Paramedics, 145 Idaho 943, 188 P.3d 885 (2008), Does Not Prevent Idaho Courts From Developing Common Law Duty Rules ............................................ 24 3. This Court Should Adopt the Limited Duty Rule ................... 28 4. Neighboring States Have Recently Adopted the Limited Duty Rule .... 33 5. The Boise Hawks Complied With the Limited Duty Rule ........... 35 C. The District Court Erred in Finding That Primary Implied Assumption of Risk is Not A Viable Defense in Idaho, and That Only Written or Oral Consent Under Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984, 695 P .2d 369 (1985) Is a Viable Assumption of Risk Defense. ............................. 37 IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................. 43 -11- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aardema v. Us. Dairy Systems, Inc., 147 Idaho 785, 215 P.3d 505 (2009) ................ 21 Akins v. Glens Falls City Sch. Dist., 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 N.E.2d 531 (N.Y. 1981) .22,24,36 Alwin v. St. Paul Saints Baseball Club, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) ....... 22 American Powerlifting Ass 'n v. Cotillo, 401 Md. 658, 934 A.2d 27 (Md. 2007) ............ 42 Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Mo. 1950) ............... 22 Arnold v. City of Cedar Rapids, 443 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1989) ....................... 22,36 Bellezzo v. State, 174 Ariz. 548, 851 P.2d 847 (Ct. App. 1992) ......................... 22 Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 246 Mich.App. 645,635 N.W.2d 219 (2001) ....................................................... 22,23,24, 30, 33, 36 Boots ex reI. Boots v. Winters, 145 Idaho 389,179 P.3d 352 (Ct. App. 2008) .............. 29 Bramwell v. South Rigby Canal Co., 136 Idaho 648,39 P.3d 588 (2001) .............. 26,28 BudelZ v. Todd, 105 Idaho 2,665 P.2d 701 (1983) ................................... 21 Chavez v. Barrus, 146 Idaho 212, 192 P.3d 1036 (2008) ........................... 26,28 Cincinnati Baseball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 OhioSt. 175, 147 N.E. 86 (1925) ............... 22 Conway v. Deer Park Union Free School Dist. No.7, 234 A.D.2d 332, 651 N.Y.S.2d 96 (1996) ...................................................................... 42 Costa v. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 299, 809 N.E.2d 1090 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) ......................................................... 22 Coughlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 133 Idaho 388, 987 P.2d 300 (1999) ............ 28,29 Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation, 333 S.C. 71, 508 S.E.2d 565 (1998) ......... 37,38,40 Erickson v. Lexington Baseball Club, 233 N.C. 627, 65 S.E.2d 140 (1951) ................ 22 Freeman v. Juker, 119 Idaho 555, 808 P.2d 1300 (1991) ........................... 26,28 Friedman v. Houston Sports Ass 'n, 731 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. App. 1987) ................... 22 Grover v. Wadsworth, 147 Idaho 60, 205 P.3d 1196 (2009) ............................ 20 Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321 (1989) ............................. 28 Hobby v. City ofDurham and Durham Bulls Baseball Club, Inc., 569 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) .......................................................... 22 Hunt v. Portland Baseball Club, 207 Or. 337,296 P.2d 495 (Or. 1956) ............ 22,37,41 Lawson ex reZ. Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P .2d 1013 (Utah 1995) ................................................... 22,23,34,37,40,41 Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408 (1931) ..... 22 McNiel v. Ft. Worth Baseball Club, 268 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954) ............... 23 Moulas v. PBC Productions Inc., 217 Wis.2d 449,576 N.W.2d 929 (1998) ............... 22 Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc., 185 Cal.App.3d 176, 229 Cal.Rptr. 612 (1986). .. 37,41 -llI- Pakett v. The Phillies, L.P., 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) ...................... 22 Perryv. Seattle School Dist. No.1, 66 Wash.2d 800, 405 P.2d 589 (1965) ................ 22 Quinn v. Recreation ParkAss'n, 3 Cal.2d 725, 46 P.2d 144 (1935) ...................... 41 Rudnick v. Golden West Broadcasters, 156 Cal.App.3d 793, 202 Cal.Rptr. 900 (Cal. App. 1984) ............................................................. 30 Rtif}ingv. Ada County Paramedics, 145 Idaho 943,188 P.3d 885 (2008) ........ 18,24,25,26 Salinas v. Vierstra, 107 Idaho 984, 695 P.2d 369 (1985) .................. 20,38,39,40,41 Sanchez v. Candia Woods Golf Links, 161 N.H. 201,13 A.3d 268 (N.H. 2010) ............ 42 Sciarrotta v. Global Spectrum, 194 N.J. 345,944 A.2d 630 (2008). .................... 22 Sparks v. Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, LP, 752 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y.S. Ct. App. Div. 2002) .22 Swagger v. City o/Crystal, 379 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. App. 1985) ....................... 41 Tife v. Omaha Coliseum Corp., 144 Neb. 22 (Neb. 1943) ............................

Load more