Claim of Horn v. Louis Goldstein Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the early baseball rule cases “arose prior to the adoption of the comparative negligence rule”
• concluding, over strong dissent, that the installation of a standard backstop fence fulfills a baseball park owner’s duty of reasonable care to protect spectators from foul balls as a matter of law
• rejecting view that the extent of the team’s duty should be left to the jury because it “would mean that every spectator injured by a foul ball, no matter where he is seated or standing in the ball park, would have an absolute right to go to the jury on every claim of negligence”
• “[M]any spectators ... desire to watch the contest taking place on the playing field without having their view obstructed or obscured by a fence or a protective net.”
• “The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.”
• the plaintiff must establish duty, breach of the duty, and injury to the plaintiff as a result thereof

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).