Spencer James Ludman v. Davenport Assumption High School

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed a premises-liability action arising from a foul ball that struck a visiting high school baseball player in an unprotected portion of the defendant school’s dugout. The court held that the school owed the player a duty of reasonable care and that the contact-sports exception and primary-assumption-of-risk doctrine did not eliminate that duty. It reversed and remanded for a new trial because the district court improperly excluded evidence of customary dugout design and failed to instruct the jury on the plaintiff’s failure to maintain a proper lookout.

Holdings

1. A possessor of land owes lawful visitors a duty of reasonable care under Iowa premises-liability law. The contact-sports exception applies only to duties owed by one participant to another and does not eliminate the duty owed by a sports-facility possessor to a player. Knowledge that a risk is open and obvious does not, by itself, eliminate the land possessor’s duty.
2. Substantial evidence supported submission of Ludman’s negligence claim to the jury, so Assumption was not entitled to a directed verdict.
3. Evidence of the custom and standard practice of comparable schools was admissible to assist the jury in determining negligence. The district court abused its discretion by excluding Assumption’s evidence concerning dugouts at other schools in the same conference.
4. The district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on proper lookout because substantial evidence supported the instruction and the refusal prejudiced Assumption.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Assumption owed Ludman a duty of reasonable care under Iowa premises-liability law despite the contact-sports exception and primary-assumption-of-risk or open-and-obvious-risk doctrines.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported submission of Ludman’s premises-liability negligence claim to the jury.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning the custom and standard practice of designing dugouts at other schools in the same athletic conference.
4. Whether the district court erred and prejudiced Assumption by refusing to instruct the jury on Ludman’s alleged failure to maintain a proper lookout.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded