Rountree v. Boise Baseball
Annotate this CaseBoise Baseball, LLC, Boise Hawks Baseball Club, LLC, and Home Plate Food Services, LLC, (collectively "Boise Baseball") sought, and the Supreme Court granted, a permissive appeal of a district court's order. Plaintiff-Respondent Bud Roundtree Rountree was a Boise Hawks season ticket holder. In 2008, he took his wife and two grandchildren to a Boise Hawks game at Memorial Stadium in Garden City. "Most" portions of the stadium are protected by vertical mesh netting approximately 30 feet high, and several areas are protected from above by horizontal netting. Rountree's tickets were in the "Viper" section, which is protected by netting. The stadium also has an area known as the "Hawks Nest," which is a dining area along the third base line covered by both vertical and horizontal netting. Adjacent to the Hawks Nest, at the "very end of the third base line," is the "Executive Club." The Executive Club, while covered by horizontal netting, "is one of the only areas in the whole stadium not covered by vertical netting." At some point during the game, Rountree and his family went to the Hawks Nest to eat. After eating, they went to the Executive Club. While in the Executive Club, Rountree started talking to someone and stopped paying attention to the game. Approximately ten minutes later, Rountree heard the roar of the crowd and turned his head back to the game. He was struck by a foul ball and, as a result, lost an eye. Rountree brought suit alleging that their negligence caused the loss of his eye. Boise Baseball moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court should adopt the Baseball Rule, which limits the duty of stadium operators to spectators hit by foul balls, and find that Boise Baseball complied with it. Alternatively, Boise Baseball argued that Rountree impliedly "consented to the risk of being hit by a foul ball." The district court denied the motion on both grounds. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no compelling public policy requiring it to adopt the "Baseball Rule." Based on that analysis, the Court was not persuaded that primary implied assumption of the risk should be treated any differently. "Allowing assumption of risk as an absolute bar is inconsistent with our comparative negligence system, whether the risks are inherent in an activity, or not. We decline to adopt the Baseball Rule. We further hold that, apart from express written and oral consent, assumption of the risk, whether primary or secondary, is not a valid defense in Idaho."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.