Legal Opinion

Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 9, 2001No. Docket 217727PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBandstra, C.J.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether we should adopt, as a matter of Michigan law, the “limited duty” rule that other jurisdictions have applied with respect to spectator injuries at baseball games. Under that rule, a baseball stadium owner is not liable for injuries to spectators that result from projectiles leaving the field during play if safety screening has been provided behind home plate and there are a sufficient number of protected seats to meet ordinary demand. We conclude that the limited duty doctrine should be adopted as a matter of Michigan law and that there was no…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Akins v. Glens Falls City School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Felgner v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Ritchie-Gamester v. City of BerkleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Cincinnati Base Ball Club Co. v. EnoOhio Supreme Court · 1925

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment, LLCNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  2. John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 2014
  3. Barton v. North Slope Borough School DistrictAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Thurmond v. Prince William Professional Baseball Club, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 2003
  5. EDWARD C. v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2010

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API