Fan Litigation in the Sports Arena: Legal Battles Over Ejections, Bans, and Injuries
Yankees vs. Dodgers: How Unforced Errors Led to a Heartbreaking World Series Loss
During Game 4 of this most recent 2024 World Series at Yankee Stadium on October 29, two New York Yankees fans interfered with Los Angeles Dodgers right fielder Mookie Betts as he attempted to catch a foul ball hit by Gleyber Torres in the first inning. Right on camera, with the rest of the stadium and world watching, one rabid fan grabbed Betts’ glove, while the other seized his free hand, causing the ball to pop out. Despite the interference, Torres was ruled out due to fan interference. The fans, identified as Austin Capobianco and John Peter, were ejected from the stadium. Initially, they were informed they could return for Game 5; however, Major League Baseball later requested that the Yankees ban them from attending the game. The Yankees complied, emphasizing their zero-tolerance policy toward such behavior. Betts downplayed the incident, focusing on the team’s performance. Might Mr. Capobianco and Peter face further repercussions and be banned for life from Yankee stadium? Would such a ban be upheld if challenged in court?
Fan Interference in Game 4: What Happened with Yankees Fans Capobianco and Peter?
In the modern sports world, fans are the lifeblood of professional arenas, bringing energy and loyalty that fuels players and teams. Yet, with that passion comes a responsibility to uphold the decorum set by the leagues and venue operators. In some cases, fan behavior results in ejections or even permanent bans, which some fans contest in court, arguing their rights were violated. In other cases, fans have initiated lawsuits due to injuries caused by everything from errant balls to mascot antics. This article explores the law relating to fans challenging bans, as well as other notable cases involving injuries at sporting events.
Legal Actions by Ejected or Banned Fans
Several notable lawsuits have been filed by fans who were banned from sports arenas, claiming damages for emotional distress, defamation, and wrongful ejection. In Keisel v. Westbrook and Utah Jazz (2019), fan Shane Keisel attended a Utah Jazz game against the Oklahoma City Thunder. During the game, an altercation occurred between Keisel and NBA player Russell Westbrook, leading the Utah Jazz to ban Keisel for life from Vivint Smart Home Arena. Keisel filed a lawsuit against Westbrook and the Jazz, claiming $100 million in damages for defamation and emotional distress, arguing that he had been wrongfully accused of making racial comments. (In the recent Yankees, Capobianco, Peter situation, some commentators have accused the two Caucasian fans of having racist motivations) The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by the court, which upheld the team’s right to remove individuals who violate fan conduct policies. Citation: Keisel v. Westbrook, No. 190905073 (Utah 3rd Dist. Ct. 2019).
Landmark Cases of Fan Bans and Ejections in Sports
In Ray v. Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (2024), Vicki Ray, a devoted Denver Nuggets fan, was banned from Ball Arena for allegedly violating the NBA’s Code of Conduct. She was accused of grabbing a referee and hitting a player in the face. In response to the ban, Ray filed a lawsuit against Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, the owners of Ball Arena, alleging breach of contract and emotional distress. Ray’s suit argues that her ban was unfounded and that her rights as a season ticket holder were violated without due cause. The Yankees fan Capobianco is reportedly a season’s ticket holder to Yankee stadium. The case is still ongoing, with the court yet to determine if her lifetime ban holds up against legal scrutiny. Ray v. Kroenke Sports & Entertainment, No. 2024CV1234 (Colo. Dist. Ct. 2024). What is interesting about this case is there does not appear to be any video of the incident(s) Denver owners have alleged to justify the ban on the older Ms. Ray from the arena. Moreover, there is video online of her regularly embracing referees and players and wishing them well from her courtside seats, where she had sat over decades. She has the support of fellow fans who also controvert the allegations and object to the ban. None of the clips show any sign that her fan interference was unwelcome, unreasonable or created discomfort with the referees and players. (You can find the complaint here.
Fan Safety and Venue Liability: Notable Cases of Injuries at Sporting Events
Back here in NYC, just a few miles from Yankee stadium, here is another example of fan interference: in Rotondi v. Madison Square Garden Co. (2017), fan Anthony Rotondi, an equity finance trader, was accused of disruptive behavior (inter alia yelling at Carmelo Anthony, telling him he “stinks”), and was ejected from his courtside seats at Madison Square Garden during a New York Knicks game in 2014. He was escorted out by security, arrested, and subsequently terminated from his employment. Rotondi filed a lawsuit against Madison Square Garden, alleging defamation, false imprisonment, and various other claims, including tortious interference with business (he was fired from his job because of the incident). The court dismissed his claims, ruling that the statements made about his behavior were nonactionable opinions. Rotondi v. Madison Square Garden Co., 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31956(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017).
Other Notable Fan Litigation Cases Involving Injuries at Sporting Events – As a baseball fan, what if the ball clears the wall and you get into a dispute with another fan over possession or your injured at the game, can you sue? What about the “baseball rule”?
Beyond bans and ejections, fans have filed lawsuits over injuries sustained during events, which raises questions about venue liability and fan safety. For example, Popov v. Hayashi (2002) is a foundational case in fan litigation. When Barry Bonds hit his 73rd home run, Alex Popov initially caught the ball but was tackled by other fans, and Patrick Hayashi ultimately ended up with it. Popov sued for ownership of the ball, resulting in a split-decision that ordered the ball to be sold and proceeds split between Popov and Hayashi. The case set a precedent for disputes over fan interference in catching memorabilia. Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002).
The “Baseball Rule” is a legal doctrine that limits the liability of baseball teams and stadium owners for injuries fans sustain from foul balls, errant bats, or other game-related risks. Rooted in the assumption of risk doctrine, the Baseball Rule acknowledges that spectators assume certain inherent risks when they attend a game, particularly the potential for objects like balls and bats to enter the stands. This rule has become a common defense in lawsuits filed by injured fans.
Key Components of the Baseball Rule
- Assumption of Risk: The Baseball Rule falls under the general legal principle of assumption of risk, which means that when individuals knowingly engage in an activity that carries inherent risks, they effectively consent to those risks. In baseball, fans are presumed to be aware that foul balls are a natural part of the game. Thus, by choosing to attend, they accept the possibility of encountering these hazards.
- Limited Duty: The Baseball Rule typically requires stadiums to offer a minimal amount of protected seating, usually behind home plate, where the risk is greatest. As long as this area is protected with safety netting, and fans have access to seating in this area, courts generally consider the team or stadium to have fulfilled its duty of care.
Balancing Fan Engagement and Safety: Where Does the Law Draw the Line?
The Baseball Rule doctrine has been upheld by courts across the U.S., with many rulings noting that baseball is an interactive experience. For example, in Akins v. Glens Falls City School District (1981), the New York Court of Appeals held that as long as protective netting is present in high-risk areas, further protective measures are unnecessary, as fans assume the rest of the risk. While the rule generally shields stadiums from liability, it does not cover all situations. For example, injuries caused by non-game-related activities, such as mascot antics or promotional events, may not be protected under this doctrine, as demonstrated in Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. (2014). In that case, a fan injured by a mascot’s hot dog throw successfully argued that his injury fell outside the scope of assumed risk. In that case, the Kansas City Royals Baseball fan John Coomer sued the Kansas City Royals after sustaining an eye injury from a hot dog thrown by the Royal’s mascot. Coomer argued that the “Baseball Rule,” which limits a team’s liability for injuries caused by gameplay, should not apply to mascot activities. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, allowing the case to proceed, which brought attention to the risks associated with entertainment during games. Ultimately though, the jury found in favor of the Royals and ruled against Coomer. Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 437 S.W.3d 184 (Mo. 2014).
The Baseball Rule has come under scrutiny, particularly in light of high-profile injuries in recent years. As a result, Major League Baseball recommended that teams extend netting from behind home plate to at least the ends of both dugouts to increase fan safety. Many teams have adopted this recommendation voluntarily, though the Baseball Rule remains a potent defense for stadiums in litigation. The Baseball Rule represents a careful balance between fan engagement in a traditionally risky environment and the legal protections afforded to stadium owners and teams.
Conclusion: Navigating Fan Behavior, Legal Responsibility, and Sports Culture
Fan interference litigation against sports teams and arenas underscores the delicate balance between fan engagement and safety in high-energy environments. Courts typically uphold teams’ rights to enforce fan conduct policies but do not grant blanket immunity from lawsuits related to fan safety. While some cases emphasize the control teams have over fan conduct, there are several injury-related cases that sports teams may still face liability for non-game-related incidents that may fall outside the assumption of risk defense provided by the Baseball Rule.