Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 N.M. 646 (2010) 241 P.3d 1086, 2010 -NMSC- 043, 82 A.L.R.6th 695 [3] affidavit establishing city and home baseball club's compliance with the rejected “baseball rule” did not KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment establish a prima facie case for summary judgment under Overruled by Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Center Associates, L.P., applicable limited-duty rule. N.M., May 8, 2014 148 N.M. 646 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Decision of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. EDWARD C. and Janis C., individually and as parents of Emilio C., Rachel C., and Cassandra G., minor children, Plaintiffs–Respondents, West Headnotes (16) v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant–Petitioner. [1] Negligence Edward C. and Janis C., individually and as Necessity and Existence of Duty parents of Emilio C., Rachel C., and Cassandra Negligence G., minor children, Plaintiffs–Respondents, Public policy concerns v. Negligence Albuquerque Baseball Club, L.L.C., d/b/a Sports, Games and Recreation Albuquerque Isotopes, Defendant–Petitioner. Negligence Duty as question of fact or law generally Nos. 31,907, 31,917. | Public Amusement and Entertainment Sept. 3, 2010. Questions of Fact The question of the existence and scope of a Synopsis defendant's duty of care is a legal question that Background: Parents of child struck by baseball while depends on the nature of the sport or activity he was sitting in commercial baseball stadium's picnic in question, the parties' general relationship to area, located beyond outfield wall in fair ball territory, the activity, and public policy considerations. brought action against city, home and visiting baseball clubs, and batter. The District Court, Bernalillo County, 7 Cases that cite this headnote Richard J. Knowles, D.J., granted summary judgment to all defendants. Parents appealed. The Court of Appeals, [2] Negligence 147 N.M. 62, 216 P.3d 827, affirmed summary judgment Public policy concerns for visiting baseball club and batter, reversed summary judgment for city and home baseball club, and remanded. Policy is the principal factor in determining City and home baseball club petitioned for writ of whether a duty is owed and the scope of that certiorari. duty. 5 Cases that cite this headnote Holdings: The Supreme Court, Edward L. Chávez, J., held [3] Negligence that: Necessity and Existence of Duty [1] “baseball rule” would be rejected; Negligence Duty based upon statute or other [2] an owner/occupant of a commercial baseball stadium regulation owes a duty not to increase the inherent risk of being hit Negligence by a projectile that leaves the field of play; and Standard of Care Negligence Reasonable care © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 N.M. 646 (2010) 241 P.3d 1086, 2010 -NMSC- 043, 82 A.L.R.6th 695 Negligence Standard established by statute or 4 Cases that cite this headnote regulation Two categories of legal duty are recognized: [8] Negligence (1) an affirmative duty to conform one's Public policy concerns actions to a specific standard of care in Negligence relation to a specific individual or group of Duty based upon statute or other individuals created by a specific statutory or regulation common-law standard; and (2) a defensive Duty is a policy question that is answered duty that is the general negligence standard, by reference to legal precedent, statutes, and requiring the individual to use reasonable care other principles of law. in his activities and dealings in relation to society as a whole. 3 Cases that cite this headnote 1 Cases that cite this headnote [9] Public Amusement and Entertainment Spectators and Other Non-Participants, [4] Negligence Injuries to Necessity and Existence of Duty Commercial baseball stadium owners/ As a general rule, an individual has no duty to occupants owe a duty to their fans that is protect another from harm. justifiably limited given the unique nature 2 Cases that cite this headnote of their relationship, as well as the policy concerns implicated by this relationship. [5] Negligence 1 Cases that cite this headnote Relationship between parties Negligence [10] Public Amusement and Entertainment Necessity and Existence of Duty Injury from Game, Performance or Certain relationships, such as a possessor of Activity land and a visitor, give rise to a duty to protect Traditional common-law framework for land another from harm. owners and occupants that would otherwise prescribe a standard duty of ordinary care 1 Cases that cite this headnote is inapposite in the limited circumstance of spectator injuries resulting from the play of [6] Negligence commercial baseball. Reasonable or ordinary care in general Cases that cite this headnote New Mexico generally applies a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances to landowners or occupants of [11] Public Amusement and Entertainment premises. Balls, bats and pucks Supreme Court would reject the “baseball Cases that cite this headnote rule,” which holds that where a proprietor of a ballpark furnishes screening for the area of [7] Negligence the field behind home plate where the danger Foreseeability of being struck by a ball is the greatest and Foreseeability is but one factor to consider that screening is of sufficient extent to provide when determining duty and not the principal adequate protection for as many spectators question. as may reasonably be expected to desire such © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 N.M. 646 (2010) 241 P.3d 1086, 2010 -NMSC- 043, 82 A.L.R.6th 695 seating in the course of an ordinary game, the proprietor fulfills the duty of care imposed 2 Cases that cite this headnote by law and, therefore, cannot be liable in negligence. [16] Appeal and Error Judgment 2 Cases that cite this headnote Because resolution on the merits is favored, a court reviewing summary judgment views the [12] Public Amusement and Entertainment facts in a light most favorable to the party Balls, bats and pucks opposing the motion and draws all reasonable An owner/occupant of a commercial baseball inferences in support of a trial on the merits. stadium owes a duty that is symmetrical to the duty of the spectator: spectators must exercise 2 Cases that cite this headnote ordinary care to protect themselves from the inherent risk of being hit by a projectile that leaves the field of play and the owner/ occupant must exercise ordinary care not to Attorneys and Law Firms increase that inherent risk. **1087 Robert M. White, Michael I. Garcia, 4 Cases that cite this headnote Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner City of Albuquerque. Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., S. Carolyn Ramos, Sean [13] Judgment E. Garrett, Emily A. Franke, Albuquerque, NM, for Torts Petitioner Albuquerque Baseball Club, L.L.C. Affidavit establishing commercial baseball stadium owner/lessee's compliance with the Vigil Law Firm, P.A., Jacob G. Vigil, L. Helen rejected “baseball rule” did not establish a Bennett, P.C., L. Helen Bennett, Albuquerque, NM, for prima facie case for summary judgment under Respondents. applicable limited-duty rule, in action brought Michael B. Browde, Law Office of William E. Snead, by parents of child struck in head by baseball William E. Snead, Albuquerque, NM for Amicus Curiae, while he was sitting in stadium's picnic area, New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association. located beyond outfield wall in fair ball territory. McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, Benjamin E. Landon, Williamsport, PA, for Amicus Curiae, Little League Cases that cite this headnote Baseball, Incorporated. [14] Judgment Miller Stratvert P.A., Ruth Fuess, Albuquerque, NM, Weight and sufficiency Holme, Roberts & Owen, L.L.P., Steven B. Smith, Brent E. Rychener, Colorado Springs, CO, for Amicus Curiae, Summary judgment may be proper when the Pacific Coast League of Professional, Baseball Clubs, Inc. moving party establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment. **1088 Geiger Law Offices, P.C., Mark P. Geiger, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae, The New Mexico 3 Cases that cite this headnote Activities Association. [15] Judgment Presumptions and burden of proof OPINION Once a prima facie case for summary judgment has been made, the burden shifts CHÁVEZ, Justice. to the non-movant to adduce evidence that would justify a trial on the merits. © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Edward C. v. City of Albuquerque, 148 N.M. 646 (2010) 241 P.3d 1086, 2010 -NMSC- 043, 82 A.L.R.6th 695 *648 {1} In this case, it is alleged that a child was the owner/occupant must exercise ordinary care not to struck in the head by a baseball during pregame batting increase that inherent risk. practice at Isotopes stadium. The child was seated in the picnic area beyond the left field wall in fair ball {5} In this case, it is alleged that the injured child was not territory with his family for a pre-game Little League in an area dedicated solely to viewing the game, but was in party. The child had just begun to eat his food when, the picnic area with tables positioned perpendicular to the without warning, pre-game batting practice began and a field of play. This type of area can be described as a multi- baseball struck him, fracturing his skull. Plaintiffs sued purpose area. It is alleged that, without warning, batting the Albuquerque Baseball Club, LLC d/b/a Albuquerque practice commenced when the child was hit by a baseball Isotopes (Isotopes), the City of Albuquerque (City), that left the field of play. Given the scope of duty that we Houston McLane Co.