Moot Court Case - Case Precedence Procopio v. Town of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Precedence Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, 20 A.D.3d 860; 799 N.Y.S.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) In the case of Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, named plaintiff, Frederico Procopio, has sued defendant, Town of Saugerties, for damages concerning an injury he sustained when struck in the head by a baseball while attending his son's game. Plaintiff was struck with the ball while standing at a concessions booth, ordering food. The baseball was thrown by a player who had been warming up in a bullpen parallel to the field and facing the concessions stand. The case also notes that the bullpen has a fence eight feet, seven inches high between the players warming up and the spectators outside. Defendants moved for summary judgment which was ultimately affirmed by the court. The court looked at this primarily through the doctrine of assumption of risk. The court held that “The doctrine of assumption of risk can apply not only to participants of sporting events, but to spectators and bystanders who are not actively engaged in watching the event at the time of their injury.” ( Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, 2005) As previously stated Mr. Procopio was not actively engaged in watching the ball game, however, he should be aware there is always some risk of being hit by a ball regardless of the facilities precautionary measures. This constant risk of being struck by a ball is also why the court ruled that “ball field owners were not the insurers of the safety of spectators,” ( Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, 2005) which again supports the doctrine of assumption of risk. The facility must adhere to a reasonable duty of care when installing protective screening for the most dangerous areas of the ballpark (behind home plate). If the owners can provide adequate protective screening for as many spectators as reasonably expected then it has fulfilled its duty of care. Plaintiffs do not mention the ballpark had inadequate screening and nowhere in this rule does it state that protective screening must be provided at facility concessions stands. This case is very relevant to the case presented before us because it is directly dealing with both assumption of risk, as well as, the limited duty rule. This quote taken from the following case is a perfect example of how assumption of risk must be applied to this case: The doctrine of assumption of risk can apply not only to participants of sporting events, but to spectators and bystanders who are not actively engaged in watching the event at the time of their injury. ( Procopio v. Town of Saugerties, 2005) Mr. Slugger loves baseball, and as an avid fan should have knowledge, above the average spectator, that one can be struck by a foul ball at any moment during the game. He assumed the risk by choosing to sit in an unprotected area. He too does not claim that the stadium failed to provide adequate screening for its most dangerous seats, thus the owners of the facility were able to fulfill their duty of
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Moot Court Case - Case Precedence Procopio v. Town of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online