{ "id": 4358046, "name": "DARYL D. BRYSON AND DENISE BRYSON, Plaintiffs v. COASTAL PLAIN LEAGUE, LLC, GASTON BASEBALL, INC., MARTINSVILLE MUSTANGS, LLC AND THE CITY OF GASTONIA, AND THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, LLC", "decision_date": "2012-07-17", "docket_number": "No. COA12-65", "first_page": "654", "last_page": "658", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "221 N.C. App. 654" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "520 P.2d 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10477066 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/520/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.W. 1076", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1077" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "569 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2" }, { "page": "1" }, { "page": "2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. App. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249725 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236-37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/152/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141" }, { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614580 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628" }, { "page": "630" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1939, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628036 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1939, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 882", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "892" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571622 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "465 S.E.2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6", "parenthetical": "quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts \u00a7 30, at 164-65 (5th ed. 1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915701 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112", "parenthetical": "quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts \u00a7 30, at 164-65 (5th ed. 1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684915 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "576 S.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511442 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "678 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151090 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "710 S.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 636, "char_count": 10222, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.470291726553117e-08, "percentile": 0.39872961705489396 }, "sha256": "ea6b6b6d386cda8ce79d4ea37c028abb70631678750a801070998a1716305fca", "simhash": "1:d5c49e620f2dacda", "word_count": 1699 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:11.101860+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN concurs.", "Judge HUNTER, JR., Robert N., concurs in result only." ], "parties": [ "DARYL D. BRYSON AND DENISE BRYSON, Plaintiffs v. COASTAL PLAIN LEAGUE, LLC, GASTON BASEBALL, INC., MARTINSVILLE MUSTANGS, LLC AND THE CITY OF GASTONIA, AND THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nDaryl D. Bryson and Denise Bryson (together, plaintiffs) appeal from an order of summary judgment in favor of Coastal Plain League, LLC (Coastal Plain League), Gaston Baseball, Inc. (Gaston Baseball), Martinsville Mustangs, LLC (Martinsville Mustangs), the City of Gastonia, and the City of Martinsville, Virginia.\nPlaintiffs have presented no arguments seeking to overturn summary judgment in their claims against the Martinsville Mustangs and the City of Martinsville. Because plaintiffs do not argue that the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment as to these defendants was improper, plaintiffs are deemed to have abandoned this issue. See Harty v. Underhill, _ N.C. App. _, 710 S.E.2d 327, 332 (2011); N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2012).\nDefendant Gaston Baseball operates the Gaston Grizzlies baseball team. Defendant City of Gastonia owns Sims Legion Park and leases it to Gaston Baseball. Defendant Coastal Plain League organizes and promotes baseball games between its member baseball teams, including the Gastonia Grizzlies and the Martinsville Mustangs.\nOn 16 June 2009, plaintiff Daryl Bryson (Mr. Bryson) attended a baseball game between the Gastonia Grizzlies and the Martinsville Mustangs at Sims Legion Park in Gastonia. Mr. Bryson\u2019s ticket was for \u201cgeneral admission\u201d and allowed him to sit anywhere in Sims Legion Park. The park has several different seating areas, including an area screened by nets behind home plate, seating along the baselines that was not screened by nets, and a \u201cbeer garden\u201d along the third base line near the bullpen, which was also not screened by nets. Mr. Bryson and his companions chose to sit in the beer garden.\nThe game on the day of the incident was delayed due to rain, and prior to the start of the game Martinsville Mustangs pitcher Trent Rothlin was warming up in the bullpen by throwing pitches to catcher Tyler Smith. Mr. Bryson, standing near a fence adjacent to the bullpen, was struck in the face by a \u201cwild pitch\u201d thrown by Rothlin. The impact of the baseball caused Mr. Bryson significant injuries, which form the basis of his complaint. His wife, co-plaintiff Denise Bryson, alleged loss of consortium against the same defendants.\nDefendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. We disagree.\nOur standard of review of a trial court\u2019s order granting or denying summary judgment is de novo. Craig v. New Hanover County Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009). \u201c \u2018Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment\u2019 for that of the lower tribunal.\u201d Id. (quoting In re Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P\u2019ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003)). Summary judgment is appropriate \u201cif the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2011). \u201cThe showing required for summary judgment may be accomplished by proving an essential element of the opposing party\u2019s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or would be barred by an affirmative defense[.]\u201d Dobson v. Harris, 352 N.C. 77, 83, 530 S.E.2d 829, 835 (2000) (citation omitted).\n\u201cThe elements of a cause of action based on negligence are: a duty, breach of that duty, a causal connection between the conduct and the injury and actual loss. A duty is defined as an \u2018obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the person to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.\u2019 \u201d\nDavis v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Human Resources, 121 N.C. App. 105, 112, 465 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1995) (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts \u00a7 30, at 164-65 (5th ed. 1984)).\nLike all landowners in North Carolina, operators of baseball parks and stadiums owe a \u201cduty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.\u201d Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615, 632, 507 S.E.2d 882, 892 (1998). However, with regard to thrown or batted balls, operators \u201care held to have discharged their full duty to spectators in safeguarding them from the danger of being struck by thrown or batted balls by providing adequately screened seats for patrons who desire them, and leaving the patrons to their choice between such screened seats and those unscreened.\u201d Cates v. Cincinnati Exhibition Co., 215 N.C. 64, 66, 1 S.E.2d 131, 133 (1939) (citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has further held that it is not necessary to provide screened seats for all patrons who desire them, but rather, \u201c[i]t is enough to provide screened seats, in the areas back of home plate where the danger... is greatest, in sufficient number to accommodate as many patrons as may reasonably be expected to call for them on ordinary occasions.\u201d Erickson v. Lexington Baseball Club, 233 N.C. 627, 628, 65 S.E.2d 140, 141 (1951).\nAdditionally, this Court has held that a baseball park operator\u2019s duty is discharged even when a plaintiff is injured in an unusual way by a thrown or batted ball. Hobby v. City of Durham, 152 N.C. App. 234, 236-37, 569 S.E.2d 1, 2 (2002). In Hobby, the plaintiff chose a seat that was not behind netting and was injured when a foul ball bounced off a support beam of the stadium and struck her head. Id. at 235, 569 S.E.2d at 1. We held that, \u201c[although a front protective screen might not have protected Ms. Hobby from the injury alleged here, defendants nonetheless discharged their duty to Ms. Hobby by providing a screened section.\u201d Id. at 237, 569 S.E.2d at 2.\nHere, Sims Legion Park did provide screened seats behind home plate, yet Mr. Bryson chose to sit in the unscreened beer garden. Therefore, the duty required of defendants Gaston Baseball and City of Gastonia as owner and operator, respectively, was discharged by providing seats screened with netting behind home plate.\nPlaintiffs argue that Mr. Bryson\u2019s injury is distinguishable from those in Cates, Erickson, or Hobby because he was struck by a wild pitch from the bullpen rather than a foul ball. We disagree. Cates specifically indicates that a stadium or park operator\u2019s duty is discharged with regard to \u201cwildly thrown or foul balls,\u201d as these are hazards incident to the game. Cates, 215 N.C. at 66, 1 S.E.2d at 133 (quoting Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 153 S.W. 1076, 1077 (Mo. 1913)).\nPersons familiar with the game of softball or baseball, both as spectators at ball parks and as viewers on television are well aware that a \u201cbull pen\u201d or warm-up area is as integral a part of the game as the players who are performing on the field. There is seldom a ball game completed where there is not activity in the warm-up areas both before and during a ball game. ... It should also be readily obvious to any person who is familiar with the game that such warm-up areas or bullpens are quite often not screened in any manner from patrons sitting in certain areas of the ball park and it should also be apparent to persons familiar with the game that on occasions a pitcher will lose control and throw a \u201cwild pitch\u201d from the warm-up or the person to whom he is throwing will miss the ball and the same may go in any direction either onto the playing field or into the stands occupied by the paying customers.\nLang v. Amateur Softball Ass\u2019n of America, 520 P.2d 659, 661 (Okla. 1974).\nPlaintiffs additionally argue that Erickson established an \u201cextraordinary hazard\u201d exception to the no-duty rule for operators of baseball parks. We disagree. Much as it is here, the alleged exception was simply an alternate theory presented by the plaintiff in Erickson, which the Court rejected. Erickson, 233 N.C. at 630, 65 S.E.2d at 142. No subsequent case citing Erickson, in North Carolina or any other jurisdiction, has referenced an \u201cextraordinary hazard\u201d as a valid exception to the no-duty baseball rule.\nWe conclude that defendants City of Gastonia and Gaston Baseball, in their capacities as owner and operator, respectively, of Sims Legion Park, owed no duty to Mr. Bryson. Therefore plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proving a prima facie case of negligence. Accordingly, we do not address plaintiffs\u2019 joint enterprise argument regarding Coastal Plain League, nor do we address Denise Bryson\u2019s loss of consortium claim as it is derivative of Mr. Bryson\u2019s negligence claim.\nWe hold that summary judgment in favor of defendants was appropriate and affirm the order of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN concurs.\nJudge HUNTER, JR., Robert N., concurs in result only.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Olive Law Firm, P.A., by Lee Olive, for plaintiffs.", "Clawson & Staubes, PLLC, by Andrew J. Santaniello, for defendants The City of Martinsville, Virginia, and the Martinsville Mustangs, LLC.", "Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by Luke P. Sbarra and M. Duane Jones, for defendants Coastal Plain League, LLC, Gaston Baseball, Inc., and City of Gastonia.", "Stott, Hollow ell, Palmer, and Windham, L.L.P, by Martha Raymond Thompson, for defendant City of Gastonia." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DARYL D. BRYSON AND DENISE BRYSON, Plaintiffs v. COASTAL PLAIN LEAGUE, LLC, GASTON BASEBALL, INC., MARTINSVILLE MUSTANGS, LLC AND THE CITY OF GASTONIA, AND THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendants\nNo. COA12-65\n(Filed 17 July 2012)\nPremises Liability \u2014 baseball park \u2014 injury\u2014no duty owed\u2014 summary judgment proper\nThe trial court did not err in a negligence action arising out of plaintiff\u2019s injury as the result of being hit' in the face by a baseball at a baseball game by granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. Defendants, in their capacities as owner and operator, respectively, of the baseball park, owed no duty to plaintiff. Therefore plaintiff could not meet his burden of proving a prima facie case of negligence.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from orders entered 18 August 2011 and 14 September 2011 by Judge Forrest D. Bridges in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2012.\nThe Olive Law Firm, P.A., by Lee Olive, for plaintiffs.\nClawson & Staubes, PLLC, by Andrew J. Santaniello, for defendants The City of Martinsville, Virginia, and the Martinsville Mustangs, LLC.\nHedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by Luke P. Sbarra and M. Duane Jones, for defendants Coastal Plain League, LLC, Gaston Baseball, Inc., and City of Gastonia.\nStott, Hollow ell, Palmer, and Windham, L.L.P, by Martha Raymond Thompson, for defendant City of Gastonia." }, "file_name": "0654-01", "first_page_order": 664, "last_page_order": 668 }