Sainttammanyparishschoolcorporation,Etal.,Petitionerv

SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica

SaintTammanyParishSchoolCorporation,etal.,Petitionerv.

PatrickandMelissaAmendola,onbehalfoftheirminorchild,Danny,Respondents

January8,2016

OnaWritofCertioraritotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourteenthCircuit

Brief for the Petitioner

Team Number 5

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.WHETHERTHECOURTOFAPPEALSPROPERLYHELDTHATTHEHAIRCUTPOLICYVIOLATESPLAINTIFF’SDUEPROCESSANDEQUALPROTECTIONRIGHTS.

II.WHETHERTHECOURTOFAPPEALSCORRECTLYREFUSEDTOADOPTTHEBASEBALLRULEFORTULANIA.

Cases:

TableofCitations

Akinsv.GlensFallsCitySch.Dist.,424N.E.2d531(1981)……………………………...……10

Andersonv.Kan.CityBaseballClub,231S.W.2d170(Mo.1950)…………………………….12

Ballv.CityofBlackfoot,273P.3d1266(Idaho2012)………………………………………….9

Barrettv.Faltico,117F.Supp.95(E.D.Wash.1953)…………………………………………..10

Benejamv.DetroitTigers,Inc.,635N.W.2d219,222(Mich.Ct.App.2001)…………13,15,16

Breenv.Kahl,419F.2d1034(7thCir.1969)…………………………………………………….3

Crewsv.Cloncs,432F.2d1259,1266(7thCir.1970)……………………………………..7,8,9

EdwardC.v.CityofAlbuquerque,241P.3d1086(N.M.2010)………………………………15

Ferrellv.Dall.Indep.Sch.Dist.,392F.2d697,702-03(5thCir.1968)……………………….7,8

Haydenv.GreensburgCmty.Sch.Corp.,743F.3d569(7thCir.2014)…………………3,4,5,7

Holsapplev.Woods,500F.2d49(7thCir.1974)…………………………………………...3,5,6

Kubichekv.Kotecki,796N.W.2d858(Wis.Ct.App.2011)…………………………………...16

Leekv.TacomaBaseballClub,229P.2d329(Wash.1951)………………………..………11,12

Maytnierv.Rush,225N.E.2d83(Ill.App.Ct.1967)…………………………………………..13

Quinnv.RecreationParkAss'n,3Cal.2d725,46P.2d144(Cal.1935)…………….....10,11,13

Rountreev.BoiseBaseball,LLC,296P.3d373(Idaho2013)………………………………….14

Schroederv.HamiltonSch.Dist.,282F.3d946,950–51(7thCir.2002).………………………6

Turnerv.MandalaySportsEntm't,LLC,124Nev.213,180P.3d1172(2008)……………11,14

Turpenv.Granieri,985P.2d669,672(Idaho1999)……………………………………………...9

UnitedStatesv.Virginia,518U.S.515,533(1996)……………………………………….……..5

Wash.v.Glucksberg,521U.S.702(1997)………………………………………………….……3

OtherAuthorities:

JamesL.Rigelhaupt,Jr.,Liabilitytospectatoratbaseballgamewhoishitbyballorinjuredas

resultofotherhazardsofgame,91A.L.R.3d24,3a(1978)…………………………….15

Joe Nocera, BaseballHas aNew Policyon Netting,but There’sa Catch,THENEWYORKTIMES

(Dec.18,2015),

RATIONALBASIS,

StatementofFacts

ThisCourtisbeingaskedtoreversethelowercourt’sjudgmentagainsttheSaintTammanySchoolCorporation.R.at4.PatrickandMelissaAmendolabroughtaclaimagainstSaintTammanyforviolationsofdueprocessandequalprotectionrightsoftheirminorchild, DannyAmendola.R.at3.MelissaAmendolabroughtanadditionalclaimagainsttheschoolfor injuriesshesustainedastheresultofafoulball.R.at3-4.

TheSaintTammanySchoolCorporationadoptedagroominganddresscodepolicyfortheentiretyoftheschooldistrict.R.at33.ThispolicyallowedtheSuperintendentto“establish suchgroomingguidelinesasarenecessarytopromotediscipline,maintainorder,securethesafetyofstudents,andprovideahealthyenvironmentconducivetoacademicpurposes.”R.at33. Thepolicyallowedeachprincipaltodevelopdresscodeandgroomingpoliciesforhis/her respectiveschool.R.at33.St.PaulHighSchooladoptedanAthleticCodeofConductwhichwas approvedbytheSchoolBoard.R.at34.ThisCodeallowedthecoachesofvarsityteams discretionininstatingindividualpoliciesforhis/herrespectiveteams.R.at34.Thecoachofthevarsitybaseballteam,CoachBelichick,enactedahaircutpolicythatrequiredplayerstocuttheir hairabovetheirears,eyebrows,andcollars.R.at34.

Dannytriedoutandmadethevarsitybaseballteam.R.at34.Duringtry-outsDannywas informedthathewouldnotbeabletoparticipateingamesorpracticesifhedidnotcomplywith thehaircutpolicy.R.at34.DuringameetingwithMelissaAmendola,CoachBelichickrevealed thatthepurposeofhispolicywasto“promoteanimageof‘cleancut’boys,aswellastoinstitute‘uniformity’forthesakeofteamunity.”R.at34.Subsequently,MelissaAmendolametwiththeschoolprincipalandthentheSuperintendent,andbothadministratorsconfirmedtheirsupportof thecoach’spolicy.Dannywaslaterterminatedfromtheteamfornon-compliancewiththehair

cutpolicy.R.at35.

Aftertransferringtoamagnetschool,andthenreturningtoSt.Paul,Dannyagainmadethevarsitybaseballteam.R.at36.Duringthe2011season,MelissaAmendolawasstruckbyafoulballwhileattendingabaseballtournamenthostedbyJesuitHighSchoolatJesuitStadium.

R.at36.Melissaobtainedageneraladmissionticketandwasseatedintheopen-seatingsection inthesixteenthrowonthethird-basesideofthefield.R.at36.Melissawasneartheconcession standandonherwaybackfromthebathroom,whichwaslocatedinthebackofthegrandstand onthethird-basesideofthefield,whenshewashitinthemouthbyafoulball.Rat36.Inorder toreachthebathroomfromMelissa’sseat,shehadtodescendthestepsofthebleachersection, walkacrosstheareaonthegroundlevelneartheconcessionstand,andthenascendthesteps leadingtothebackofthegrandstand.Rat36.

TheSchoolCorporationputseveralsafetyprecautionsinplaceforitsspectators,includingaprotectivenetscreeningseatslocatedbehindhomeplateandnumerouswarningsof theriskanddangersincidentaltobaseball.Rat36.Eachadmissionticketcontainedawarning thatspectatorsassumetheriskanddangersincidentaltobaseball,suchasbeinghitbyabatorabattedball.Rat36.LargewarningsignswerepostedthroughouttheJesuitStadiumalerting spectatorsthatinjurycouldresultduringandbeforethegamebyathrownorbattedballleaving thefieldofplay.Rat37.Additionally,anannouncementoveraloudspeakerisroutinelymadepriortothestartofthegamewarningspectatorstobealertforballsleavingthefieldofplay.Rat

37.Melissaconcededthatshedidnotreadthewarningontheticket,andshestatedthatsheneversawtheballcomingtowardsherbecauseshewasnotwatchingthegameandcouldnotseethebatterinherpositionneartheconcessionstand.Rat36-37.

StandardofReview

TheSupremeCourtwillreviewthecaseathanddenovo.

Argument

I.SaintTammanyParishSchoolCorporationdidnotdepriveDannyofdueprocessorequalprotectionrights.

Hairlengthisnotafundamentalrightandrequiresonlyrationalbasisreview.BecauseSaintTammanyhasmetrationalbasisreview,theschoolhasmetitsburdenandhasnotdeprivedDannyofdueprocess.Further,theschoolhasmetamuchhigherburdenof scrutiny-substantialburdenjustification,andevenifthiscourtfindsthathairlengthisafundamentalright,SaintTammanyhasstillmetitsburdenand,therefore,hasnotdeprived Dannyofhisdueprocessrights.Additionally,becausetheschoolhasmetthesubstantialburdenofjustificationconcerningthehaircutpolicy,SaintTammanyhasmetahigher burdenthanneededwhendealingwithaquasi-suspectclasssuchasgender.Therefore,SaintTammanyhasnotdeprivedDannyofhisequalprotectionrights.

A.Hairlengthisnotafundamentalrightandrequiresonlyrationalbasis review.

Acourt’srelianceontheBreencourt’slineofreasoningthathairlengthisacomponent

of“personalfreedom”safeguardedbytheConstitutionisnotdecisive.SeeBreenv.Kahl,419

F.2d1034(7thCir.1969).ThecourtshouldinsteadfollowtheGlucksbergcourt’sdrawbacksto

enumeratingfundamentalrightsanduse“utmostcare”tolimittheserightsonlyifdeeplyrooted inU.S.history.SeeWash.v.Glucksberg,521U.S.702(1997).Thiscourtshouldconcludethat

hairlengthisnotafundamentalrightandrequiresonlyrationalbasisreview.Holsapplev.

Woods,500F.2d49(7thCir.1974);Haydenv.GreensburgCmty.Sch.Corp.,743F.3d569(7th

Cir.2014).

TheGlucksbergcourt’slineofreasoninglimitstheenumerationoffundamentalrightsto

thoserightsgroundedinournation’shistoryandcustom.InHayden,aschoolpolicyrequired

boysplayinginterscholasticbasketballtokeepthelengthoftheirhairshort.Hayden,743F.3dat

571.Thepublicschool’sboardoftrusteesmadethedecisiontoadoptedapolicytoallowthedistrictsuperintendenttoestablishgroomingguidelines.Id.at571.Thesuperintendentpassed

authoritytotheprincipalofeachdistrictschooltodevelopthepolicy.Id.at572.Finally,the

principaloftheschoolwhoadoptedthepolicyatissue,allowedthevarsityheadcoachesforeach sporttodesignateparticularhairlengthsfortheirrespectivesport.Id.Theheadbasketballcoach

designatedhisplayers’hairlengthsshouldbe“abovetheears,eyebrows,andcollar.”Id.The

coach’sjustificationforthislengthwasto“promoteteamunityandprojecta‘cleancut’image.”Id.Onlytheboys’basketballandbaseballteamshadsimilarhairlengthpolicies,whiletheboys’

track,boys’football,andgirls’athleticteamsdidnot.Hayden,743F.3dat572.Amalestudent

whowishedtoplaybasketballobjectedanddidnotcuthishairtothelengthrequiredbythecoach.Id.Afterboththeschoolprincipalanddistrictsuperintendentsupportedthecoach’s

policy,themalestudentwasnolongerallowedtoplayonthebasketballteam.Id.

Thecourtheldthathairlengthwasnotafundamentalright,and,assuch,requiresonly rationalbasisreview.Id.at575,576.Furthermore,thecourtheldthatthestudentdidnotmeet

theburdenofproofforprovidingevidencetoallowhimtowinonarationalreviewbasis.Id.at

576.Thecourtreasonedthatfundamentalrightsarethoserights“whichare‘deeplyrootedinthis Nation’shistoryandtradition,andimplicitintheconceptoforderedliberty,suchthatneither libertynorjusticewouldexistiftheyweresacrificed.’”Id.at575.Further,thecourtelectedto

followtheGlucksberglineofreasoningthatfundamentalrightsshouldnotbeeasilyexpanded

andshouldonlybeexpandedusing“utmostcare.”Id.

Whenacourtisreliantontheunlimitedenumerationoffundamentalrightsprovidedby theBreencourt’sreasoning,courtsconcludethathaircutpoliciescurtailafundamentalright.

Holsapple,500F.2dat49.InHolsapple,aschoolgroomingpolicyimposeddismissalon

studentswhoworetheirhair“excessivelylong...totheeyebrows,ears,[or]overthecollar.”Id.

at50.Amalestudentenrolledattheschoolandwasprovidedwithawrittencopyoftheschool’s policy.Id.Thestudentwaslatersuspendedforfailingtocomplywiththepolicy.Id.The

school’sjustificationforthepolicyreliedonexpertwitnesses’testimonythatdressand groomingstandardspositivelycorrelatedwithgoodbehaviorand“properlearningatmosphere.”Id.at51.Thecourtheldthathairlengthwasafundamentalright,andrequiredtheschooltooffer

asubstantialburdenofjustificationforcurtailingtheright.Id.at51,52.Thecourtfollowedthe

Breen’scourtreasoningthathairlengthwas“aningredientofpersonalfreedomprotectedbythe

UnitedStatesConstitution.”Holsapple,500F.2dat51,52.

Thecourt’sinterpretationoffundamentalrightsinHaydenisequallyapplicabletothis

case.TherationaleinHayden,whichpromotesthelimitedenumerationoffundamentalrights,

promotestheGlucksberglineofreasoning.Further,thefactthatHaydenandGlucksbergwere

morerecentlydecidedprovideevidencethatthisisthebetterlineofrationaletofollow.

B.Thehaircutpolicydidnotviolateplaintiff’sequalprotectionrights.

ThelowercourtincorrectlyheldthatthehaircutpolicydeprivedDannyofequalprotection.Sincegenderisaquasi-suspectclass,itrequiresintermediatescrutiny.UnitedStates

v.Virginia,518U.S.515,533(1996).Thislevelofscrutinyfallsbetweenrationalbasisreview

andsubstantialburdenjustification.Intheinstantcase,SaintTammanyhasmetthehigher

burdenforsubstantialjustification.Therefore,becausetheschoolhasmetthisburdenwhen providingevidenceonthehaircutpolicyinstatedbyCoachBelichick,theschooldidnotviolateDanny’sequalprotectionrights.

Furthermore,inordertoprevailonanequalprotectionclaim,Dannywouldberequired toshowthatheisamemberofaprotectedclass,thatheissimilarlysituatedtomembersofaprotectedclass,andthathewastreateddifferentlyfrommembersoftheunprotectedclass.See

Schroederv.HamiltonSch.Dist.,282F.3d946,950–51(7thCir.2002).Dannycanshowthathe

isamemberofaquasi-suspectclass-genderandmaleathletes.However,Dannyisnottreated differentlyfromfemaleathletesbecauseeachathletebendstothewillofthepoliciesdecidedby thecoachofthatvarsityteam.Inaddition,becausetherearenosimilarlysituatedfemales playingbaseball,thereisnotacloseenoughequivalenttobaseballtodemonstratethatDannyis similarlysituatedtomembersofaprotectedclassinthatrespect.WhileDanny’srepresentatives mayarguethatbaseballandsoftballaresimilar,thetwosportsaredistinctinrulesand regulations,neededathleticskills,andfundamentals.

C.Theschoolmetitsburdenunderbothrationalbasisreviewandsubstantialburdenofjustification.

EvenifthiscourtfindstheBreenlineofreasoningtobemorepersuasive,Saint

Tammanyprovidedevidencemeettheburdenforbothrationalbasisreviewandsubstantialjustification.Rationalbasisreviewisusedtodeterminealaworpolicy’sconstitutionality. RATIONALBASIS,

substantialburdenjustificationisusedwhendeterminingtheconstitutionalityofaninfringementonafundamentalright.Holsapple,500F.2dat52.

SaintTammanyprovidedevidencetomeetrationalbasisreview.Inordertosustainan actionagainstthegovernmentunderrationalbasisreview,aplaintiffhastheburdentoprovethat

thegovernment’saction“lacksarationalrelationshipwithalegitimategovernmentinterest.”Hayden,743F.3dat576.LikethestudentinHaydenwhodidnotmeethisburdenofproofto

showthatthecoach’sjustificationwasnotsufficienttowinaclaimbasedonrationalbasis review,Dannydidnotprovidesubstantialevidencetoshowthatthehaircutpolicydidnothavearationalrelationshipwiththeschool’sinterest.

SaintTammanyalsoprovidedevidencetomeetconstitutionalmustertoinfringeuponafundamentalrightunderthesubstantialburdenjustification.“Theconstitutionalrighttofreeexerciseofspeech,press,assembly,andreligionmaybeinfringedbythestateiftherearecompellingreasonstodoso.”Ferrellv.Dall.Indep.Sch.Dist.,392F.2d697,702-03(5thCir.

1968).Whenaschoolprovidesevidencethatthepolicyinquestionisnotarbitraryandcauses disruptionswhichcannot,withoutfurtheractionbytheschoolbeceased,theschoolhasmetthesubstantialburdenjustification.Id.at701;Crewsv.Cloncs,432F.2d1259,1266(7thCir.

1970).

Whenaschoolprovidesevidencethatthepolicyinquestionisnotarbitrary,theschoolhasmetthesubstantialburdenjustification.Ferrell,392F.2dat701.InFerrell,malehighschool

studentsweredeniedenrollmentinschoolbecauseoftheir“Beatle”stylehaircuts.Id.at698.

Theprincipaloftheschoolmaintainedtheactionviatheauthoritydelegatedtohimbytheschooldistrict.Id.at699.Boththeschooldistrictandsuperintendentconfirmedtheprincipal’sposition.

Id.at700.Thejustificationsforthehaircutpolicywastodecreaseincidentsofbullyingand

harassmentandtomaintainan“effectiveandefficientschoolsystem.”Id.at700-01,703.The

courtheldthattheschooldidnotviolatethestudents’dueprocessrights.Id.at701.Thecourt

reasonedthatthepolicyinstatedbytheprincipalwasnot“arbitrary,unreasonableorabuseof discretion.”Ferrell,392F.2dat701.Additionally,thecourtreasonedthattheinterestofthe

governmentoutweighedtheinfringementonthestudents’fundamentalrightbecausetherewasacompellinggovernmentinterestforwhichtodoso.Id.at702-03.

Whenaschoolhasnotprovidedevidencethatthepolicyinquestionisnotarbitrary,theschoolhasnotmetthesubstantialburdenofjustification.Crews,432F.2dat1266.InCrewsa

studentwasdeniedadmissiontoschoolbecausehedidnotfollowschoolrulesconcerninghis hairlength.Id.at1261.Afterahearing,theschoolboardconfirmedandsupporteddenyingthe

readmissionofthestudent.Id.at1262.Theschoolboardjustifiedthedecisionduetothe“best

interestsofthediscipline,government,andmanagement”oftheschool.Id.Theschooloffered

evidencethatthedealtwithonlythepersonalviewofthesuperintendent’sbeliefthatlonghair wasinappropriate.Id.at1265.Thecourtheldthattheschooldidnotmeetasubstantialburdenof

justification.Id.at1267.Thecourtreasonedthattheschoolprofferedevidenceonlythatdealt

withthepersonalviewofsuperintendent.Crews,432F.2dat1265.Thecourtalsoreasonedthat

whiletheschooldidofferevidencethatthestudent’slonghaircouldcauseinsubstantialdisruptions,buttheschooltooknoactionstotrytoceasethesedisruptionsandthereforewerenotentitledtorelyingonthisevidenceforajustificationforinfringingonafundamentalright. Id.at1266.

ComparabletotheevidenceprofferedbytheschoolinFerrell,SaintTammanyoffered

evidencethatthepolicyinquestionisnotarbitrary.InFerrell,theschool’shaircutpolicycaused

dissentbetweenstudents,andtheschoolconfirmedthatthehaircutpolicywasjustifiedbecauseitpromotedanefficientandeffectiveschoolsystem.Ferrell,392F.2dat700-01,703.Similarly,

thejustificationofthehaircutpolicyprovidedbyCoachBelichickisthatthepolicypromotes unityanda“cleancutimage.”R.at9.Therefore,thepolicywouldmaketheschoolandsports

environmentmoreefficientandeffective.Contrastingly,theevidenceinCrewssimplyreliedon

thepersonalpreferencesoftheschoolsuperintendent.Crews,432F.2dat1265.

Insummary,becausetheevidenceofferedbySaintTammanywasnotarbitraryitoffers acompellingreasontoinfringeuponafundamentalrightandtherebypassesconstitutionalmusterunderthesubstantialburdenjustification.

Thiscourtshouldfindthatthecourtofappealsimproperlyheldthatthehaircutpolicy violatesDanny’sdueprocessandequalprotectionrights.Hairlengthisnotafundamentalrightandrequiresonlyrationalbasisreview.However,SaintTammanyhasmetaburdenof substantialjustificationforitshaircutpolicy,therebymeetingtheburdenneededtosurpassan infringementofevenarightfoundtobefundamental.Thisburdenismorestringentthantheburdenrequiredofanequalprotectionrightdealingwithaquasi-suspectclass.

II.TheBaseballRuleshouldbeadoptedforTulania.

TheBaseballRuleshouldbeadoptedforTulania.Inordertoestablishnegligence,theinjured individualmustestablish(1)adutyowedtotheindividual,(2)abreachofthatduty,(3)acausalconnectionbetweenanactionorinactionandtheresultinginjury,and(4)actuallossordamage. Turpenv.Granieri,985P.2d669,672(Idaho1999).Everypersonduringtheconductofbusiness

hasadutytoexerciseordinarycareinpreventingunreasonableandforeseeablerisksofinjury. Id.at672.Moreover,thedutyowedbylandownersistypicallydeterminedbythestatusofthe

individualinjuredontheland,meaningwhetherthepersonwasaninvitee,licensee,or trespasser.Ballv.CityofBlackfoot,273P.3d1266,1270(Idaho2012).Aninviteeisdefinedas

anindividualthatentersthelandofanotherforabusinesspurpose.Id.Alandownerowesan

inviteethedutytomaintainthelandinareasonablysafeconditionorwarnofanydangersthatarenotobvious.Id.Underordinarynegligencestandards,thedutyofalandownertokeepthe

landinareasonablysafeconditionforinviteesappliessolelytoconditionsthatareunknownto theinviteeandwouldnotbeobvioustotheinviteeintheexerciseofordinarycare.Barrettv.

Faltico,117F.Supp.95,100-01(E.D.Wash.1953).Thelandownerisnotrequiredtochangethe

premisesinordertoeliminateknownorobviousrisks,astheownerisnotliableforinjuriestoan inviteeresultingfromaninviteefailingtoexerciseordinarycare.Id.

Themainissueathandintheinstantcaseistodeterminewhatdutyisowedbybaseballstadiumownersandoperatorstospectators.Forinjuriessustainedatbaseballstadiumsand fields,mostcourtshaveadoptedatwo-prongstandard,alsoknownasthebaseballrule,for determiningthescopeofdutyowedbytheownerorproprietorofthestadiumorfield.Akinsv.

GlensFallsCitySch.Dist.,424N.E.2d531,533(1981).Accordingtothebaseballrule,the

stadiumownerisrequiredtoscreenthemostdangerousareaofthefieldandthescreening providedmustbeadequateforspectatorsreasonablyexpectedtorequestprotectedseatsatan ordinarygame.Id.Thelegaltheoriesthatinspiredthebaseballrulearethedoctrinesof

assumptionofriskandcontributorynegligence.Quinnv.RecreationParkAss'n,46P.2d144,

147(Cal.1935).

ThisCourtisbeingaskedtoreversetheappellatecourt’sdecisionrefusingtoadoptthebaseballruleforTulaniabecausethebaseballruleisinlinewiththerequirementsofordinary negligencestandardsforlandowners.

Thelimiteddutyrule,alsoreferredtoasthebaseballrule,shouldbeadoptedforTulaniabecauseitisconsistentwiththerequirementsofordinarynegligencestandards.

The“limiteddutyrule”requiresbaseballstadiumownersand operatorstoprovideasufficientamountofprotectedseatingforthosespectatorswhomaybereasonablyanticipatedtodesireprotected seatsonanordinaryoccasion,andtherulealsorequiresstadiumownersandoperatorstoprovideprotectionforallspectatorslocatedin the most dangerous partsof the stadium, thatis, those areas thatpose

anundulyhighriskofinjuryfromfoulballs,suchasdirectlybehind homeplate.

Turnerv.MandalaySportsEntm't,LLC,180P.3d1172,1175(2008)(emphasisadded).*The

baseballruleisconsistentwiththerequirementsofordinarynegligencestandardsinthatitrequireslandownerstoexercisereasonablecareinprotectinginviteesfrominjury,holds landownersresponsibleforinjuriesresultingfromconditionsthatarenotopenandobvious,and considerstheassumptionofriskandcontributorynegligenceonthepartofthespectator.Leekv.

TacomaBaseballClub,229P.2d329,363(Wash.1951);Quinn,46P.2dat146.Moreover,the

baseballruledoesnoteliminatealandowner’sdutytoexercisereasonablecarebutsimply definesabaseballstadiumowner’sdutywithmorespecificity.Turner,180P.3dat1175.

First,thebaseballruleisconsistentwithordinarynegligencestandardsbecauseitrequiresreasonablecaretoinvitees,andlandownersareresponsibleforinjuriesresultingfromconditionsorrisksthatarenotopenandobvious.Leek,229P.2dat363-64.InLeek,aspectator

boughtanadmissiontickettoagameatastadiumhehadneverbeentobefore,buthehadplayed baseballasachildandseengamesfromtimetotime.Id.Theusherdirectedthespectatortoa

seatimmediatelybehindhomeplatewhereaverticalwirescreenstood,whichwasnothis ticketedseat.Id.Thegrandstandsectiondidnothaveprotectionoverhead,andthespectatordid

notlooktoobserveanyoverheadprotection.Id.Shortlyafter,afoulballwashitintothe

spectator’ssectionofthegrandstand,buthelostsightoftheballduetothehazynight.Id.The

ballhithimintheheadcausinginjury.Id.

*Almostalljurisdictionshaveadoptedalimiteddutyruleofstadiumownerstoscreencertain areasfortheprotectionofspectatorsandhaveheldthatliabilitywillbeprecludedwheninjury resultsfromafanelectingtositinanunscreenedseat.Friedmanv.Hous.SportsAss’n,731S.W.2d572,574(Tex.App.1987).Manyvariationstothebaseballrulenowexist.

Thecourtheldthatthebaseballruleappliedandconcludedthatthestadiumownerwas notunderadutytoprovideoverheadscreeningbecausethelimitsoftheprotectionaffordedto spectatorsareopenandobvioustopatrons.Leek,229P.2dat367-68.Thecourtreasonedthat

althoughthestadiumownerhadadutytoscreensomeoftheseatsinthegrandstandforasmany spectatorsasmayreasonablybeexpectedtoreservesuchseatsforanordinaryoccasion,theownerwasentitledtoassumethatthespectatorsenteringthegrandstandsectionwouldnoticethattherewasnooverheadprotectioninthegrandstand.Id.at364,369.Thecourtbasedits

reasoningongeneralprinciplesofnegligenceinpremiseliabilitybecausetherewasno informativeprecedent.Id.at365.Thecourtstatedthat“thedutytousecareispredicatedupon

knowledgeofdanger,andthecarewhichmustbeusedinanyparticularsituationisinproportion totheactor’sknowledge,actualorimputed,ofthedangertoanother.”Id.

Thecourtreasonedthatundergeneralpremiseliability,injuriestoaninviteecausedbyaconditionontheowner’spremisesmayimputeliabilityontheowneronlyiftheownerknowsor shouldhaveknownoftherisksassociatedwiththecondition,hasnoreasontobelievetheinviteewillrealizetheriskofthecondition,andfailstotakeprecautionstomakethecondition reasonablysafeortowarnthevisitorofthepotentialrisk.Id.at365-66.Thecourtalsostated

thatthecontrollingfactorinthecasewaswhetherthelandownerhadreasontobelievepriorto theaccidentthatlackofoverheadprotectionwouldunreasonablydangerthespectators.Id.at

366.Thecourtdeterminedthatfoulballsdroppingovertheverticalscreeninthegrandstandwas notanunreasonableriskbecausetheballsthatgohighenoughtoclearthescreenareeasierto dodgeorcatchasopposedtofoultipsthatenteradjacentstandswithoutgainingconsiderableelevation.Id.;seealsoAndersonv.Kan.CityBaseballClub,231S.W.2d170,173(Mo.1950)

(holdingthatthedangeroffoulballsbattedintothestandsisopenandobvioustoanyonewith

normalobservationskillsandknowledgeoftherulesofbaseballisnotnecessarilytorecognizesuchdanger);butseeMaytnierv.Rush,225N.E.2d83,87-88(Ill.App.Ct.1967)(holdingthat,

althoughthebaseballruleappliedandthedutyofcarewasmetbythestadiumowner,theowner wasliablefortheinjurysustainedbecauseitdidnotresultfromanormalconsequenceofthegame).

Additionally,thebaseballruleisconsistentwithordinarynegligencestandardsbecauseitconsiderstheassumptionofriskandcontributorynegligenceonthepartofthespectator.Quinn,

46P.2dat146.InQuinn,aspectatorchosetositinanunscreenedsectionofthestandsnearfirst

baseandwashitbyafoulball.Id.Thecourtnotedthattheinjuredgirlhadfullknowledgeofthe

risksshewasassuminginoccupyinganunscreenedseat.Id.at145.Thecourtheldthatthe

spectatorassumedtheriskofinjurybysittinginanunscreenedseatwhenotherscreenedseats wereavailable.Id.at147.Thecourtreasoneditiscommonknowledgethatduringbaseball

gamesballsarethrownandbattedveryhardandfastsuchthatmanywillreachoutsidethelines ofthediamondandintothestands.Id.Sincethisiscommonknowledge,thecourtfurther

reasonedthatspectatorsassumetheriskofinjuryfromthoseballsleavingthefield.Id.Thecourt

statedthataninherentriskassumedbyspectatorsatbaseballgamesisthatofinjuryfromfoulballs,andstadiumownersarenotinsurersofsafetyfromthenaturalrisksofthegame.Quinn,46

P.2dat146.Infact,thecourtnotedthatmanyspectatorsprefertositwheretheirviewisnotobstructedbyaprotectivescreenornet.Id.;seealsoBenejamv.DetroitTigers,Inc.,635

N.W.2d219,222(Mich.Ct.App.2001)(holdingthattherewasnodutytowarnspectatorsatabaseballgameoftheknownandobviouspossibilitythatabattedorthrownballcouldenterthestandsandthatmanyspectatorswelcomethisrisk).

Finally,thebaseballruledoesnoteliminatealandowner’sdutytoexercisereasonablecarebutsimplydefinesabaseballstadiumowner’sdutywithmorespecificity.Turner,180P.3d

at1175.InTurner,aspectatorwasinjuredwhileeatinginaconcessionareasituatedseveral

hundredfeetfromhomeplateatthetopviewinglevelofthebaseballfield.Id.at1175.Thecourt

heldthatthebaseballruleappliedandexpresslyadoptedtheruleinthejurisdiction,recognizing theimportanceofsettingtheouterlimitsforpersonalinjurylitigationresultingfrominjuriesatbaseballgames.Id.at1176.Thecourtnotedithadneverpreviouslyspecificallydefinedthe

scopeofaproprietor’sdutyinregardstobaseballstadiumowners,eventhoughthelimitedduty rulehadbeenadoptedinatleasttwelveotherjurisdictions.Id.at1175.Thecourtreasonedthat

thelimiteddutybaseballruledefinesabaseballstadiumowner’sdutywithmorespecificitythan theusualnegligencestandardswithouteliminatingtheowner’sdutytoexercisereasonablecareunderthecircumstancestoprotectspectators.Id.Thecourtfurtherreasonedthatonceastadium

ownerhasmettherequirementsofthejurisdiction’sbaseballrule,thereisnoremainingdutyto protectspectatorsfromfoulballsbecausetheyareaknown,obvious,andunavoidableaspectof thegame.Id.at1176;butseeRountreev.BoiseBaseball,LLC,296P.3d373(Idaho2013)

(holdingthatthebaseballruledidnotapplyinIdahobecausetherewasnoprecedentforthecourttolooktoanddeterminingwhatprecautionsstadiumownersshouldtakewouldamountto guesswork,whichismoreappropriateforthelegislature).

ThisCourtshouldfollowtherationaleinLeek,Turner,andQuinnandproperlyconclude

thatthebaseballruleshouldbeadoptedforTulania.Thebaseballruleisinlinewithordinary standardsofnegligenceandprovidestheCourtwithamorespecificdefinitionofthescopeof dutyowedbybaseballstadiumowners.RefusingtoadoptthebaseballruleforTulaniawould openthefloodgatestolimitlesslitigationinthecourtsforpersonalinjuryclaimsandplacea

substantial,unnecessaryburdenonbaseballstadiumownersandoperators.Twoprimary concernsstadiumownershavearethatadditionalnettingwilleliminatethe“treasuredintimacy”betweenfansandplayersandwillsignificantlyraisethepricesofadmissiontickets.JoeNocera, Baseball HasaNewPolicyonNetting, butThere’saCatch,THENEWYORKTIMES(Dec. 18,

2015),

encourages,butdoesnotrequire,nettingtobeextendedbehindhomeplateaboutseventyfeetdownthefoullinestotheendofthedugouts,whichisconsideredthemostdangerousareaofthestadium.Id.Thepolicyalsocallsforteamsandticketvendorstoemphasizewhichseatsare

protectedbythenettingwhenspectatorsarepurchasingtickets.Id.Itwouldbesenselesstohold

stadiumownershostinghighschoolbaseballgamestoahigherstandardthanthosehosting MajorLeagueBaseballgames.

TherationaleinRountreedoesnotcompelarefusaltoadoptthebaseballruleforTulania.

Thereisuniversalsupportforthelimiteddutyruleforbaseballstadiumowners.Benejam,635

N.W..2dat221.Notonlyisthereuniversalsupportforthebaseballrule,buttherearealso manydifferentvariationsoftheruledependingonthejurisdiction.SeeJamesL.Rigelhaupt,Jr.,

Liabilitytospectatoratbaseballgamewhoishitbyballorinjuredasresultofotherhazardsof

game,91A.L.R.3d24,3a(1978);EdwardC.v.CityofAlbuquerque,241P.3d1086,1088

(N.M.2010)(rejectingthemostlimiteddutyruleandholdinginsteadthatanownerofacommercialbaseballstadiumowesadutytoexerciseordinarycarenottoincreasetheinherentrisksofbaseball,whichissymmetricaltothedutyofthespectatortoexerciseordinarycarein protectinghimselffromtheinherentriskofbeinghitbyafoulball).TheFourteenthCircuit

notedthatthecourthadthepowertoadoptthebaseballrule.Rat28.OthercourtsinCalifornia, Georgia,Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota,Missouri,Nevada,NewYork,NorthCarolina,Ohio, Oklahoma,Texas,Utah,andWashingtonhaveadoptedthebaseballrulewithoutwaitingontheir respectiveStatelegislature.91A.L.R.3d24,3a(1978).Refusingtoadoptthebaseballrulewillcreatemoreofaburdenonthecourtsbynotcreatingaspecificallydefineddutyforaninherently dangerousspectatorsport.Thebaseballruledoesnotnecessarilyneedtodeterminespecificities fortheprotectivenettingstadiumownersshoulderect.Instead,therulecreatestheouterlimitsof liabilityandactsasaguidelinetostadiumownerstoensurethesafetyofitspatrons,whilealso preservingthenatureofthegame.

PolicyalsorequirestheadoptionofthebaseballruleforTulania.

Evenifaplaintiffestablishestheelementsofanegligenceclaim,acourtmayneverthelessprecludeliabilitybasedonpublicpolicyconsiderationsif:

(1)theinjuryistooremotefromthenegligence;(2)theinjuryistoowholly outofproportiontothetortfeasor'sculpability;(3)inretrospectitappears toohighlyextraordinarythatthenegligenceshouldhaveresultedintheharm;(4)allowingrecoverywouldplacetoounreasonableaburdenonthetortfeasor;(5)allowingrecoverywouldbetoolikelytoopenthewayfor fraudulentclaims;or(6)allowingrecoverywouldenterafieldthathasno sensibleorjuststoppingpoint.

Kubichekv.Kotecki,796N.W.2d858,868(Wis.Ct.App.2011).Asnotedbythecourtin

Benejam,manyspectatorswelcometheriskinherenttobaseball,asitisknownasournational

pastime.Onemajorreasonforphysicallyattendingabaseballgameistobeapartoftheaction andpossiblycatchafoulballasasouvenir.Itistheexcitementofbeinginthestadiumthatmakesattendingagamesoattractive.Thosewhowishtobeapartoftheactionwhilestillretainingsomeprotectionfrominjuryhavetheoptiontopurchaseseatsinthescreenedsection. Also,thankstohighdefinitiontelevision,baseballgamescanbewatchedfromthecomfortof one’sownhome.Evenfornon-professionalbaseballgames,thereareoptionsthespectatorcan

taketoprotecthimselforherselffromphysicalinjury.Nowadays,manyhighschoolandtravelbaseballgamesandtournamentsarestreamedonlineforfamilyandfriendsoftheplayersto watchfromhome.Theminorityofspectatorsthatseekanextremeamountofprotectionon behalfofthestadiumownershouldnotcreatetheruleforliability.Thebaseballrulebalancestheneedsofkeepingthegameofbaseballexcitingwhilestillprovidingadequateprotectionfor spectators.

Thus,thebaseballruleshouldbeadoptedforTulaniabecauseitisconsistentwiththerequirementsofordinarynegligencestandardsinthatitrequireslandownerstoexercisereasonablecareinprotectinginviteesfrominjury,holdslandownersresponsibleforinjuries resultingfromconditionsthatarenotopenandobvious,andconsiderstheassumptionofriskand contributorynegligenceonthepartoftheinvitee.Also,thebaseballruledoesnoteliminatealandowner’sdutytoexercisereasonablecarebutsimplydefinesabaseballstadiumowner’sduty withmorespecificity.

Conclusion

Inconclusion,thisCourtshouldfindthatSaintTammanyParishSchoolCorporationdidnotdepriveDannyofhisdueprocessorequalprotectionrightsbecauseSaintTammanymetits burdenunderbothrationalbasisreviewandunderthemorestringent,substantialburdenof justification.Furthermore,thisCourtshouldadopttheBaseballRuleforTulania.