If someone is injured at a baseball game by an errant ball or bat, can the team and/or venue be sued for damages?

I remember discussing this in torts class in law school. A tort so to speak is “a wrong” in a civil sense (as opposed to criminal) and can be either an act or even an omission when there is a duty to act. With a tort there would also be a defense or multiple defenses for the defending (or offending) party. The lawyers that you see television and roadside ads for are mostly interested in representing someone (plaintiff) that has been wronged in things like car wrecks or maybe wronged in their use of products found to have defects in them. So, the individual in a vehicle that is hit by another and if the individual is injured then they may well sue the person that hit them. Their lawyer (plaintiffs attorney) will look to see if the driver of the other (defendant) vehicle exhibited traits of negligence such as speed, avoidable distractions, impairment (physical or by means of emotional, mental or influence by drugs or alcohol), loss of legal ability to operate a vehicle, reckless behavior, driving a less than roadworthy vehicle either through vehicle, brand or tire history or recall, etc. There are of course other things that the plaintiff’s lawyer would investigate. While the plaintiff is suing the individual that committed the act, the defendant is represented by an attorney or attorneys for the insurance company that insures the defendant driver.

The defendant attorneys would prepare defenses for the defendant. Most states use either true comparative negligence or some form whereas the negligence involved in an accident is “compared” between the negligence of the plaintiff and that of the defendant. If the plaintiff for example is found to be 20% negligent then the total award to the plaintiff is reduced by 20%. Alabama, like a small minority of other states uses contributory negligence where if the plaintiff contributes even one scintilla of the negligence then they recover nothing. Georgia uses a modified comparative rule saying that nothing can be recovered if the plaintiff could have with ordinary care avoided the consequences. Georgia law also compares the negligence and if the plaintiff’s negligence reached 50% or more then the plaintiff recovers nothing. The mention of Georgia is relevant to the remainder of this article.

Going to the original question, the defense to a plaintiff struck by a baseball or bat during the course of the game is assumption of the risk. You might sign a waiver or a contract for instance in a risky activity such as skydiving. I believe I have seen something to that effect on baseball tickets. If not in writing then assuming the risk may be implied by doing something like rock climbing or even attending a baseball game where fencing does not protect all spectators and its known that baseballs and maybe even bats will go flying in various directions.

During the 2021 World Series MVP, Jorge Soler threw a ball into the stands hitting Mayra Norris in the eye. The lawsuit was brought in 2023 against the Braves and Soler. The facts stated in the case were that “Before the game resumed in the fifth inning, Soler, a right-fielder for the Braves at the time, stood in the outfield. According to the Plaintiffs, Soler threw a baseball “overhand, with great force, speed, and intensity” in Mayra’s “immediate direction,” and she did not have time “to react or to avoid impact from the ball. The Plaintiffs alleged that the game was not in play at the time and that Soler’s throw was neither incidental to the game nor a warm-up between the players. The complaint alleges that the baseball struck Mayra in her right eye, and she sustained multiple fractures, a right eye edema, and an infra-orbital abrasion.” The facts from the trial Court read, “The court reasoned that“[s]ouvenir baseballs thrown into the crowd are clearly inherent to the game of baseball, and being struck by one is an inherent risk for those in [the] Plaintiffs’ position.” Thus, the trial court concluded that “Soler’s throw was an inherent risk to the area in which Plaintiffs chose to sit at Truist Park during a live baseball game[,] [and] [t]herefore[] the Baseball Rule applies and bars Plaintiffs’ claims.” The plaintiffs are seeking such damages as determined at trial.

The trial court ruling was in favor of the defendants under Georgia’s “baseball” rule which is basically like Alabama’s “assumption of the risk”. The case was appealed with the Georgia Court of Appeals and reversed on September 12, 2025. During the appeal, Norris had asserted that the Braves should “prevent reckless and dangerous conditions of which it knew or should have known.” The appeals Court felt that the lower Court did not give the plaintiff the opportunity to gather facts to show an exception to the Georgia “baseball” rule. For instance, had Ms. Norris been a small child that would have worked as an exception since a small child would not appreciate the risk nor be expected to be one to be able to avoid an object coming directly at them. Even a parent or guardian may not have sufficient time to avoid a child being injured. Finally the appellate decision stated that it, “included his (of) loss consortium claim with Mayra’s claims in the same suit and we have determined that the trial court erred by dismissing the underlying negligence claims, it necessarily follows that the trial court also erred by dismissing the derivative loss of consortium, punitive damages, and attorney fees claims.”

The case now returns to the trial court and we will see what occurs.

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.