You'd have bet on the plaintiff losing this appeal. You'd have been wrong.
Plaintiff decides to watch her son pitch in a college baseball game, and sits on the grass on the third base side. There's no admission charge or anything like that; it's a classic small-college field. She gets hit by a foul ball and sues the school.
The trial court grants summary judgment based upon the primary assumption of the risk doctrine and the longstanding "baseball rule" -- a doctrine that essentially says that venues aren't liable for foul balls, since that's simply part of the sport, and aren't required to put up netting or things like that.
The Court of Appeal reverses. It thinks that the University may well be liable. And isn't shy about saying so; or criticizing precedent in this area as "out of step" with contemporary jurisprudence.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this from the California Supreme Court. It's not bound by precedent. But I was a bit surprised to see something so bold from the Court of Appeal. Which is.
