Question

Explain the limited duty rule that applies to baseball and is favorable to the baseball facility owner. Then explain how the distraction doctrine may apply to alter the outcome of such a case.

Answer 1

There are restricted responsibilities specific to areas where spectators must be looked after. However, when an item leaves the camp and strucks a viewer, the owner of the woud facility takes care of the viewer. This rule, however, is anticipated. The primary risk argument is that the defendant has no obligation to protect the plant from the risk of the injury. A secondary assumption of risk often occurs in which the defendant should take care of the claimant.Therefore, in the case of primary or express risk assumptions, the restricted duty principle in the case of the facility proprietor is beneficial when the claimant implicably relieves the obligation to decrease the harmful risk. It is for the owner of the facility not to increase the risk that baseball viewers face and assume. The doctrine of diversion may alter the outcome of such a case. The law allows the proprietor to take responsibility for the condition caused by the proprietor and does not harm the facility.

John Lowe was seriously injured by a foul ball in the case of Lowe vs. the California League of Professional Baseball during the game. The facilities, the defendant in the case, requested that because of the primary assumption or the risk rule, they be held not responsible for the damage. The plaintiff, however, argued that the team mascot, touching him with the tail, distracted him from the game when the ball struck him. This proved to be exposed to risks beyond the normal expectations of participating in a baseball match, so there was no preliminary assumptions of the risk rule and the facility was liable for damages.

Please please please rate the answer.It really helps me helps me.Thanks!