Shadyside woman injured by foul ball at PNC Park wins round in court |

Shadyside woman injured by foul ball at PNC Park wins round in court

Christopher Horner | Tribune-Review
Emergency workers aid Wendy Camlin of Shadyside, who was struck by a foul ball behind home plate during the second inning of the Pirates game against the Cubs on April 20, 2015, at PNC Park.
Christopher Horner | Trib Total Media
The Cubs' Starlin Castro watches as emergency workers aid Wendy Camlin of Shadyside, who was struck by a foul ball he hit behind home plate during the second inning against the Pirates on Monday, April 20, 2015, at PNC Park.

A Shadyside woman injured by a foul ball at a Pirates game can proceed with her lawsuit against the team, Major League Baseball and the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority despite legal precedents shielding them from liability, an Allegheny County judge ruled Thursday.

An usher was leading Wendy Camlin to her seat behind home plate when the net that should have stopped the ball stretched far enough for the ball to hit her in the head, Camlin’s lawyer said. She was carried off on a stretcher and taken to a hospital.

Common Pleas Judge Timothy Patrick O’Reilly dismissed the defendants’ preliminary objections that the state’s “no duty” precedent, also known as “the baseball rule,” limited their liability because fans at sporting events assume the risk of being struck by errant balls, bats or pucks.

“If she was being escorted, I think that’s different. And flexibility in the screen; whose idea was that?” O’Reilly said.

“Every ballpark in the world, Your Honor,” replied Bryan Stroh, general counsel for the Pirates. Flexible screens keep the ball from caroming off and hurting players, he said.

The defendants will have two months to respond to Camlin’s original complaint, in which she argued the netting was insufficient or incorrectly installed. She is seeking more than $35,000 in damages from each defendant. The lawsuit says Camlin suffered a concussion, migraines and other injuries.

“She was not aware, nor could anyone be aware in those seats, that (the netting) was defective,” said Camlin’s lawyer, Mark Gordon.

Ken Jacobsen, a professor of sports law at Temple University and an owner of the minor-league Wilmington Blue Rocks baseball team, said O’Reilly was correct in not immediately applying the “baseball rule.”

Part of what protects teams and owners from being liable for batted balls is that they must take “reasonable precautions” for the most dangerous areas of the ballpark with things like the netting behind home plate, Jacobsen said. But Camlin’s case contends the netting wasn’t an adequate precaution because it couldn’t stop the ball before it hit her.

Having an usher lead Camlin to her seat while pitches were being thrown may have shifted some of the risk from Camlin to the defendants, Jacobsen said.

“It gives rise to the argument over whether it was safe to go to her seat,” he said. “Having the usher is suggesting it was proper and safe.”

“I can see somebody drawing a distinction between this and the classic foul ball that goes into the stands,” said John Gismondi, a Downtown-based personal injury lawyer. “In an area without protection, you’re going to be more on guard. … Behind a net, you’re sort of subconsciously relying on that for protection.”

Christopher Amar, representing all three defendants, argued that just because the screen is there, patrons shouldn’t think they’re completely safe.

“Arenas don’t assume a duty for sufficient protection so that no patron is ever injured,” Amar said. “(Camlin’s) belief she might have been safe behind a safety measure wasn’t relevant. … The plaintiff was the closest person to the plate in the entire arena.”

Matthew Santoni is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-391-0927 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.