Missouri Supreme Court hears case of Royals fan struck by flying wiener

On the 12th anniversary of terrorist attacks on the United States, the Missouri Supreme Court heard the story of quite a different type of attack- the appeal of John Coomer, who attended a Kansas City Royals game on Sept. 8, 2009, and suffered a detached retina after he was hit in the eye by a wiener shot at him by the Royals mascot Sluggerrr.

The audio of the oral argument in the case can be found at this link, as well as briefs filed by both sides. This is the summary of the case from the Missouri Supreme Court website:

John Coomer attended a Kansas City Royals baseball game Sept. 8, 2009, where he was struck by a hotdog during a Royals’ game tradition known as the hotdog toss. Coomer suffered an eye injury requiring surgeries for a detached retina and a cataract. He reported the injury to Royals personnel Sept. 16, 2009. At trial, the Royals filed for summary judgment claiming Coomer had implicitly assumed the risk because being struck by a hotdog was an inherent risk of attending a baseball game. The jury determined the Royals were not at fault for the hotdog incident. Coomer filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, which the circuit court overruled. Coomer appeals. 

Coomer argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. He contends that the theory of primary implied assumption of risk is not applicable in this case because the risk involved here is not inherent to the game of baseball and because he is claiming negligence. Coomer asserts certain jury instructions were improper because coupled together they completely bar his claim even if the Royals are found negligent, which misstates the law. He argues the Royals failed to prove he was comparatively at fault because he did not act unreasonably when he was struck with the hotdog. Coomer contends the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding negligent supervision and training because they are not theories of imputed liability (attributing fault). 

The Kansas City Royals respond the trial court correctly overruled Coomer’s motion for directed verdict. They argue implied primary assumption of risk is applicable because being struck by a thrown hotdog is an inherent risk of the hotdog toss at Royals’ games. The Royals contend Coomer consented to the risk by attending the game knowing the toss was an inextricable part of the experience. They assert the jury instructions were proper because they were consistent with implied primary assumption of risk and prevented a complete defense verdict if the jury found the Royals negligent. The Royals argue there was substantial evidence to support comparative fault because Coomer was aware hotdogs were being thrown and chose to look away from the hotdog being thrown in his direction. They contend the court correctly refused Coomer’s claims of negligent supervision and training because they had already admitted agency and theories of negligence would have been duplicative.