Take Me Out By The Ball Game! An Overview Of Spectator Liability

Attending a sporting event is supposed to be fun. But what happens if you're injured by a foul ball or a hockey puck while sitting in the stands? What if you are injured in some other manner while at a sporting event? Can you make a claim for your injuries?

Understanding liability at sporting events

If a spectator is injured while at a sporting event, they may be able to commence an action against the occupier of the facility where the event was held. The Occupiers' Liability Act places a duty on the occupier to ensure that people on the premises where the event is being held are reasonably safe.

In order to bring a successful claim, the injured spectator must prove that the occupier of the premises breached its duty to keep spectators safe. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection. This means that, just because someone is injured while on the premises, the occupier is not automatically liable. When you attend any sporting event, you accept certain risks that come with the sport. In legal terms, this is called "voluntary assumption of risk".

In spectator liability, the question is how these two things – the duty of the occupier to ensure that spectators are reasonably safe and the spectators' voluntary assumption of risk, are balanced.

Foul Balls = Ordinary, Known Risk

In Rivers v. North Vancouver (District) et al, the plaintiff was watching his 16-year-old son's baseball game. While he was watching the game, he was injured by a foul ball from another adjacent baseball diamond. He brought a claim for his injuries against the owner of the baseball diamond, and various baseball leagues. The plaintiff argued that the owner had failed to keep and maintain the premises in such a way that spectators would be safe, and that the leagues had been negligent for failing to warn spectators of the exceptional risk of foul balls, failing to bring that risk to the attention of the owner, and failing to cease playing baseball simultaneously at both diamonds.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims. While agreeing that the occupiers of the baseball diamond (the owner and the baseball leagues, with the exception of Little League Canada) owed a duty of care to spectators, the Court found that the risk of a foul ball leaving the field and injuring a spectator was an ordinary, known risk of baseball viewing and therefore did not give rise to a duty by the defendants to take action:

[89] The risk of foul balls landing in the South Bleachers was not an unusual or exceptional risk that gave rise to a duty by the League Defendants to either take steps to ameliorate or warn of its presence.

[90] In order to constitute such a risk, the danger would need to be one which was known, or could reasonably be expected to be known, to the defendant, but which would not be perceived or appreciated by an ordinary person exercising common sense.

There are inherent risks with all sporting events.

For an occupier of a sporting event to be responsible for an injury caused at that event, the injury needs to be something that is not an inherent risk of that sporting event.

In Rivers v. North Vancouver (District) et al, it was held that a foul ball leaving the field is an ordinary, known risk of a baseball game and therefore the occupiers were not liable for the injury caused by it. However, it is important to note that this decision could have been different with slightly different facts. For example, if the injury had occurred in an area where spectators do not expect baseballs to go, such as a food stand or walkway, the occupiers may have been liable.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.