John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the implied primary assumption of risk doctrine does not excuse a recreational activity sponsor from \a duty of reasonable care not to alter or increase . . . inherent risks\
• finding that the trial court did not err in when refusing to allow the plaintiff to submit multiple theories of imputed liability to the jury where the defendant had already admitted agency
• noting that the “wall of authority in support of the Baseball Rule is badly cracked in cases where a spectator is injured by a ball when the game is not underway or where fans ordinarily do expect to have to keep a careful lookout for balls or bats leaving the field.”
• the plaintiff was still required to show an employee was negligent before the jury can award any damages under claims of negligent training or supervision
• where employer admitted vicarious liability, if its employee was found negligent for throwing hot dog at fan during ballgame, no other theory of liability would be \necessary or useful\ to establish employer's responsibility for fan's injury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).