If I hit a car while playing softball am I liable for the damage?

[UltraVires]

@DSYoungEsq

Actually, not the same thing, usually. Since the spectator in such cases has usually purchased a ticket, there can be an alteration of liabilities as part of the contract. Thus, if you go to a major league baseball game (or a minor league game, for that matter), you will find that your ticket, or some other literature available at the time of purchase, advises you that foul balls and the like happen, and that you have to pay attention, and that you are assuming the risk of being hit by such a ball. This generally shifts the burden over to the spectator, as long as the team/stadium owner/operator have taken reasonable precautions against situations where even a reasonably prudent spectator cannot be expected to avoid injury (such as by putting up nets behind home plate and hockey end lines).

As for the OP, it will depend upon circumstances. If you are playing at a baseball diamond, and someone parks a car where foul balls are common, and you hit one and it hits their window, you can only be considered liable if you were “negligent,” that is, you did not take that care which we would expect of a reasonable person to avoid causing damage to things with your game. A finder of fact might well conclude that, if you are playing the game normally, and the expected happens (a foul ball behind first base, say), and that results in damage to a car, that’s not the result of negligence on your part. If, on the other hand, you are screwing around in some fashion, and the way you are goofing off leads to the possibility of that occurrence, that’s a different issue.

Take as an example to dissect the famous video of the ball hit for a home run in some minor-league game that hits the side window and smashes it on a car driving past the park beyond the left field fence. Is the hitter of the home run negligent? Probably not; he cannot take any due care not to have that happen short of not playing the game, which isn’t in his range of decisions. Is the driver negligent? Probably not; how could the driver expect that that would happen? And even if the remote possibility occurred to him/her, what would the driver be expected to do about it, avoid driving on a public street as needed because a game is going on? Is the owner of the park negligent? Very possibly; the owner of the park could certainly forsee that a car might get hit by a home run over that fence, because even though the chance on any individual home run is small, given the multiple times that balls will go over that fence, it might well be expected the owner would realize some car some day might get hit. The owner would be expected to put up a fence or netting or something to limit that possibility.

All of this, of course, is potentially limited by statute. Many states, for example, have statutes which purport to put the liability for property or personal injury damage from a golf ball onto the player. This is intended to shield the golf course owners from such claims, in order to avoid having golf courses close down under the threat of massive numbers of tort lawsuits. Of course, although the signs will tell you that YOU are liable for injury or damage, that doesn’t mean that general negligence rules don’t apply, unless the statute creates a strict liability, which most of them do not do.

So, like at Wrigley Field on Waveland Ave. outside the left field fence, the Cubs would be responsible for any damage done by home run balls?

Even though the field has been there since 1914 and anyone who built there/drives there/walks there/eats at a sidewalk cafe there has ample notice and warning of game times and knowledge that home run balls land in that location?

[dgrdfd]

@Bluffcityguy

Forgive my ignorance, but what kind of disc are y’all using for disc golf or “ultimate” disc games? Scaled down manhole covers?

From what I’ve understood to be a “Frisbee” (TM belonging to whoever), one wouldn’t do noticable damage to a car if you stood right next to the vehicle and flung it into the car as hard as you could. Are “ultimate discs” or disc golf discs that much more substantial that they could cause a car noticable damage at any distance?

Cheers,

bcg

Maybe an ultimate disc wouldn’t cause much damage and realistically probably not a disc golf disc, but I could see it maybe causing a dent or something. Admittedly, not likely, but I suppose it could happen. Some people can throw disc golf discs 400ft or more. So they obviously have some speed when thrown and under the right conditions I could envision it causing damage, but more likely it would just leave a plastic skid mark across the body.

[Ludovic]

@Bluffcityguy

Forgive my ignorance, but what kind of disc are y’all using for disc golf or “ultimate” disc games? Scaled down manhole covers?

From what I’ve understood to be a “Frisbee” (TM belonging to whoever), one wouldn’t do noticable damage to a car if you stood right next to the vehicle and flung it into the car as hard as you could. Are “ultimate discs” or disc golf discs that much more substantial that they could cause a car noticable damage at any distance?

Cheers,

bcg

For disc golf, they’re generally almost the same weight as Frisbees, but smaller and with slightly denser and firmer plastic. Plus, they are designed to not slow down as much in the air so the maximum velocity, even at long range, is higher than for a frisbee. So I’d think that they’d do slightly more damage of the scraping and scruffing variety than Frisbees but not an order of magnitude higher or anything and they still wouldnt be able to break safety glass.

[Bluffcityguy]

@dgrdfd

Maybe an ultimate disc wouldn’t cause much damage and realistically probably not a disc golf disc, but I could see it maybe causing a dent or something. Admittedly, not likely, but I suppose it could happen. Some people can throw disc golf discs 400ft or more. So they obviously have some speed when thrown and under the right conditions I could envision it causing damage, but more likely it would just leave a plastic skid mark across the body.

And that skid mark would be fairly costly to fix, if my experience the last time I had to have paint work done on my car is any indication. Ok, that I can see. Thanks for the explanation!

**ETA: ** Thanks to Ludovic (who slipped his post in as I was writing this) too!

Cheers,

bcg

[DSYoungEsq]

@jtgain

So, like at Wrigley Field on Waveland Ave. outside the left field fence, the Cubs would be responsible for any damage done by home run balls?

Even though the field has been there since 1914 and anyone who built there/drives there/walks there/eats at a sidewalk cafe there has ample notice and warning of game times and knowledge that home run balls land in that location?

I’m not sure what damage you would postulate happening. No one parks there on game days, probably by ordinance, and all you ever see outside the stadium there are tons of people milling around in the hope of catching a ball exiting the park. I suspect that a ball hit hard enough to crash through a window on the other side of Waveland (or it’s counterpart, Sheffield Ave.) would be a rare blow indeed, and might cause some consternation, but I doubt that the monetary amounts in consideration would be worth fighting over in court. Possibly the club has some agreement in place with the owners of the buildings involved.

But the fact that the stadium is there, and has been there, doesn’t mean that someone who managed to park on Waveland would be considered negligent for having done so, or to have assumed the risk of damage. Otherwise, homeowners on the other side of the road from a golf course would hardly have any reason to complain of golf balls raining down on them while they engage in gardening activities on a Spring Saturday.

[Telemark]

Balls hit over the Green Monster at Fenway come down on a parking lot and the street.

[ivn1188]

Regarding people getting hurt by stray throws, etc:

@DSYoungEsq

Actually, not the same thing, usually. Since the spectator in such cases has usually purchased a ticket, there can be an alteration of liabilities as part of the contract. Thus, if you go to a major league baseball game (or a minor league game, for that matter), you will find that your ticket, or some other literature available at the time of purchase, advises you that foul balls and the like happen, and that you have to pay attention, and that you are assuming the risk of being hit by such a ball. This generally shifts the burden over to the spectator, as long as the team/stadium owner/operator have taken reasonable precautions against situations where even a reasonably prudent spectator cannot be expected to avoid injury (such as by putting up nets behind home plate and hockey end lines).

You’re correct, but the underlying theory here is the same. In many cases a simple warning (“Watch out for foul balls”) counts as a reasonable precaution. It’s the basis for a good portion of product liability cases. And the idea that the fan has accepted some portion of liability by contract is true when there is an agreement. But the underlying theory of negligence still applies, it has just been altered by contract.

If you take the question of people getting injured out of professional venues, the rules of negligence will dominate. For example, on a disc golf course in a multi-use city park. There would be liability for hitting a person walking on the sidewalk out of bounds. Presumably, there would be less for hitting a guy that runs right out in front of the tee box as someone is making their run-up.

You are entirely correct that there are often complications and specific statues designed to shift liability. But they all modify the negligence theory, and I was trying to lay down a solid foundation before adding the extras.