It has been said that justice should be swift and sure. However, with respect to the Supreme Court’s decision in Maisonave v. The Newark Bears Professional Baseball club, 185 N.J. 70 (2005), the Legislature acted faster and with more resolve to undo the Court’s decision in that case. In Maisonave, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined, in September 2005, that owners/operators of professional baseball stadiums possess a duty of care to guard patrons against dangerous conditions in all areas of the stadiums except the stands. Id. As such, Mr. Maisonave’s claim for negligence against the owners’s of the Newark Bears could proceed to a jury. On January 12, 2006, both houses of the New Jersey State Legislature passed The New Jersey Baseball Spectator Safety Act of 2006. The Act passed the Assembly by a unanimous 76-0 vote, while the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 25-7. The Act, similar in nature to Colorado’s Baseball Spectator Safety Act, immunizes owners/operators of professional baseball stadiums and teams from personal injury lawsuits arising out of the inherent risks of a baseball game. The Legislature defined these inherent risks as injuries resulting from being struck by a baseball or baseball bat anywhere in the stadium. The immunity granted by the Act is not absolute. To qualify, stadium/team owners/operators must post signs at conspicuous places at the entrance to the stadium and at locations where tickets are purchased. The signs must state as follows:

WARNING
UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW, A SPECTATOR OF PROFESSIONAL
BASEBALL ASSUMES THE RISK OF ANY
INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM
ANY OF THE INHERENT DANGERS AND RISKS OF SUCH
ACTIVITY AND MAY NOT RECOVER FROM AN OWNER OF
A BASEBALL TEAM OR AN OWNER OF A STADIUM
WHERE PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL IS PLAYED FOR
INJURY RESULTING FROM THE INHERENT DANGERS
AND RISKS OF OBSERVING PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL,
INCLUDING BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL OR A
BASEBALL BAT ANYWHERE ON THE PREMISES
DURING A PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME.

The failure to post these warnings in the required areas deprives the owners/operators of the protections provided by the Act. Moreover, the Act does not bar suits for personal injuries arising out of the acts or omissions by other spectators. Furthermore, based upon the statutory language, it does not appear that the statute bars suits for injuries stemming from dangerous conditions unrelated to being struck by baseballs or baseball bats. Only time will tell whether the Courts will interpret this statute broadly or narrowly. Yet, in consideration of the New Jersey Court’s general policy that favors plaintiffs, we expect that the Courts will interpret the statute narrowly to ensure that plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking redress for injuries not related to bats and balls.

Eric S. Schlesinger, Esq.