John Lowe Case Study

John Lowe v. California League Of Professional Baseball et al.
65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105(Cal.1997)

Facts
Plaintiff John Lowe attended a Quakes’ home game in California and his seat was along the left field foul line. During the game, the team mascot was playing his antics behind plaintiff and had been touching plaintiff with his tail. Plaintiff was therefore distracted and turned around toward the mascot. After that, plaintiff returned his focus on the game but got hit by a foul ball. Plaintiff heavily injured because of the foul ball and then brought a suit against the defendant California baseball league. The trail court granted the defendant summary judgement. Plaintiff then appealed the decision.

Issue
Was the trial court wrong to grant the
Plaintiff and her husband had occupied the identical seats before, so plaintiff was supposed to know the risk of sitting an unprotected area and she didn’t require a protected area even though there was a struck warning on the back of her ticket. So the court concluded that she voluntarily sat in an unprotected area and she was sufficiently warned of the risk by her knowledge of attending a baseball game and the ticket. Therefore, plaintiff assumed the risk before she sat in her preferred seat and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied in this case. The defendant did not breach his duty to warn or protect
Plaintiff had a season ticket seat which was in the fourth row. During the pregame warm-ups, there were several punks being used on the ice and there was a crowd around the plaintiff which blocked plaintiff’s eyes to see the ice court. Plaintiff tried to move to find a clear view but she failed. A punk flew off the ice and plaintiff’s mouth and face got hit because she could not see the ice and therefore she was not able to evade. Plaintiff got severe injuries because of the flying punk and brought a suit against the defendant Los Angeles Kings hockey club. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff then appealed. Issue
Was the trial court wrong to grant the defendant summary judgment? Does the doctrine of primary assumption of risk apply to this case?

Rule
Whether the trial court wrong or not depends on whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff’s injuries or breathed his duty to not to increase the inherent risk of the game.
The doctrine of primary assumption of the risk is when the plaintiff has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in an inherently risky activity like sports and the defendant owes the plaintiff no legal duty to protect against those inherent risk that caused his or her