By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Timothy Roeckel is suing the Colorado Rockies after a foul ball struck him in the eye during a July 2023 game, resulting in “catastrophic and permanent injuries.” His lawsuit argues that Coors Field’s design obstructed his view, preventing him from avoiding the ball, thus negating the usual “assumption of risk” defense. Furthermore, the suit contends the Rockies’ poor performance led to decreased spectator engagement, increasing the risk of such incidents. Roeckel seeks unspecified damages and a jury trial.
Read the original article here
A Colorado man is suing the Colorado Rockies after being hit in the eye by a foul ball during a Major League Baseball game. This lawsuit, however, seems to be facing an uphill battle, given the inherent risks associated with attending a baseball game. The fact that the injured party was a guest in a luxury box, and therefore didn’t purchase the ticket himself, adds an interesting layer to the legal proceedings.
The lawsuit argues, among other things, that the Rockies’ poor performance on the field led to a less engaged audience, implying a decreased awareness of the potential dangers inherent in watching a baseball game live. This argument, however, is tenuous at best and likely won’t hold much weight in court. Many commenters pointed out the obvious assumption of risk involved in attending a sporting event, where the possibility of being hit by a foul ball is a well-known and inherent danger.
The existence of liability waivers is another critical factor in this case. Nearly every MLB ticket includes a detailed disclaimer absolving the team of liability for injuries sustained from batted balls, equipment, or other game-related incidents. The very nature of the game presents risks, and those risks are clearly communicated to ticket holders. The assumption of risk doctrine, as some have aptly pointed out, seems to perfectly encapsulate this situation.
The fact that the injured man was a guest in a luxury box raises questions about the applicability of the ticket’s waiver. While the ticket clearly outlines the assumption of risk, it remains unclear whether the waiver extends to guests who did not purchase the ticket. This presents a potential legal grey area that the court will need to consider. It sparks discussion on the responsibilities of the box owner to inform their guests of the inherent risks associated with the event. Should the guest sue the box owner instead? This adds a fascinating layer of complexity to the already unlikely lawsuit.
Many see this lawsuit as an attempt to exploit the legal system, a cynical attempt to capitalize on an unfortunate incident. There’s a widespread sentiment that the plaintiff should have been more aware of his surroundings and the inherent dangers of attending a baseball game. This frustration is especially palpable given the detailed warnings and liability waivers in place.
The comments suggest a general disdain for this type of lawsuit, viewed by many as frivolous and an example of the American tendency to litigate over everything. The common sentiment is that the plaintiff should be responsible for his own safety and that the lawsuit will ultimately fail. The legal costs associated with fighting this lawsuit are likely far greater than any potential settlement, potentially leading to significant financial repercussions for the plaintiff should the case be dismissed.
The narrative surrounding this case further highlights the tension between personal responsibility and legal recourse. While the man suffered an unfortunate injury, many believe that the inherent risks were clearly communicated and understood, negating any grounds for a successful lawsuit. The lawsuit’s emphasis on the Rockies’ poor performance further adds a layer of absurdity to the case. This lawsuit appears to be more a criticism of the team’s performance on the field than a legitimate claim of negligence.
Ultimately, the case seems destined to fail. The strong assumption of risk argument, the presence of clear liability waivers, and the sheer absurdity of the underlying claims make it a long shot for the plaintiff. While sympathetic to the man’s injury, most seem to believe this lawsuit is without merit and represents a misuse of the legal system. The outcome of this case will likely serve as a reminder of both the inherent risks involved in attending live sporting events and the limitations of suing for injuries resulting from assumed risks. The Rockies may indeed be getting a rare win here, outside of the baseball diamond.