MacElree Harvey Resources - Foul Ball but No Foul Play

Timothy F. Rayne, Esquire

Under the "no-duty" rule, fans are assumed to understand risks and voluntarily accept them

On March 25, 2005, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decided the case of Neil Pakett v. The Phillies involving a claim for injuries arising from a fan being struck by a foul ball. Fans who attend sporting events should be aware of the Court's ruling.

Neil Pakett was sitting in Veterans Stadium for a Philadelphia Phillies baseball game behind home plate on the third-base side. It was a seat he had occupied about once a year for the last six or seven years. Pakett understood the danger posed by baseballs coming into the stands and knew that four or five foul balls per game were hit into the immediate vicinity of his seat. In addition, on the back of every ticket, Phillies spectators are warned that they enter the stadium "at their own risk" and injuries may occur during a game. There are also warnings posted throughout the stadium and a video cartoon is played in the middle of the first inning of each game telling spectators to be aware of balls leaving the playing field.

In the bottom of the first inning, a player hit a foul ball towards Pakett. He saw the ball coming and, wanting a souvenir, tried to catch it with his bare hand. Unfortunately, he missed and the ball hit him in his right eye. Despite surgery, Pakett suffers from permanent impaired vision in that eye.

Pakett sued the Phillies claiming negligence for failing to erect and maintain a backstop that was adequate to protect spectators. Applying what is generally known as the "no-duty" rule, the courts dismissed Pakett's lawsuit.

The No-Duty Rule
The no-duty rule applies to ban claims for injuries suffered as a result of common, frequent and expected risks. People participating in certain activities are assumed to understand such risks and voluntarily accept them, which eliminates any duty to protect them from these known hazards. This rule is often applied when injuries occur at sporting events caused by foul balls, hockey pucks or errant golf shots, etc.

Pakett's injury was a textbook example of the no-duty rule. Getting hit by a foul ball was a common, frequent and expected risk of attending a Phillies game. He knew of the danger. He even voluntarily confronted it by trying to catch the ball. Because this was clearly an inherent risk involved when one attends a baseball game, he had no legal claim against the Phillies.

Click here to view the author's biography.

MacElree Harvey
17 West Miner Street
Post Office Box 660
West Chester, PA 19381–0660
p | 610.436.0100
f | 610.430.7885
f | 610.429.4486
e | info@macelree.com

The following article is informational only and not intended as legal advice.
Speak with a licensed attorney about your own specific situation.
© Copyright 2006 MacElree Harvey, Ltd. All rights reserved.

At a glance
Foul Ball but No Foul Play

On March 25, 2005, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decided the case of Neil Pakett v. The Phillies involving a claim for injuries arising from a fan being struck by a foul ball.

Under the "no-duty" rule, people participating in certain activities like sporting events are assumed to understand such risks and voluntarily accept them, which eliminates any duty to protect them from these known hazards.