The Baseball Rule: Crying Foul or Reasonable Reassessment?

Happy baseball season!! Another year, another opportunity to repeatedly throw on your Astros gear and remind everyone who’s the best in the AL West.

The season is officially in full swing and baseball fans across the country (and Canada) are ready to cheer on their favorite teams. While I’ve enjoyed listening to games on the radio and watching them in the comfort of my own home, catching a game in the stadium is definitely something special. And if 2024’s attendance numbers are any indication, fans are in agreement. Over 71 million people went to MLB games last year, with the Houston Astros averaging 35,003 people per game.

But even though we look forward to snagging a seat in the stadium, it’s not all fun and games. Catching a foul ball is one of the best things that can happen to a fan. Getting hit by a foul ball, though? Incredibly painful. Baseball is an old sport, and no matter which source you cite, it’s not too far from its 200th year anniversary. So, it’s no surprise that foul balls have been around for a long time too. The first time a fan took the issue of foul ball injury to court was in 1913, in Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co. The court decided in favor of Kansas City, and this would be the origins of the Baseball Rule.

The Baseball Rule is a legal doctrine that professional baseball teams have limited liability regarding injuries caused by foul balls and baseballs leaving the field. The reasoning is that baseball has an inherent risk of balls flying into the stands, and by attending that game, people are accepting that risk. On the teams’ side, they have to meet two standards: first, teams are expected to install netting to protect the area of their stadiums most at risk, and second, teams must have an adequate number of screened seats to meet demand for protected seating during a game. If a team meets those requirements, then under the Baseball Rule, they are considered to have met the duty of care owed to attendees and cannot be held legally liable for their injuries.

The Baseball Rule is common law and has been upheld as precedent for over 100 years. It has actually only been codified in four states: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey. While the rule has been embraced by MLB teams, there has been growing sentiment among courts and fans that it is outdated.

Nathaniel Grow and Zachary Flagel point out in their work, The Faulty Law and Economics of the “Baseball Rule,” that courts have held “the most dangerous area” of a stadium to only be the “sections of seats located immediately behind home plate.” Given how the game has changed, that might not be adequate anymore. Pitchers throw faster and batters hit harder now then they have in the past, creating a much larger area for baseballs to go flying into. This creates a problem, as netting has not kept up. There is also the fact that, with balls coming off the bat harder and faster than ever, there is even less reaction time now. The best of MLB’s bats regularly hit a baseball over 100 miles an hour. Houston Astros’ own Yordan Alvarez has hit a homer at 117.7 mph.

“Even if I’m watching a game, and a 105 mph foul ball comes at me, and I’m ready for it, there’s still a good chance I could miss it.”

— Garret Jones, former MLB first baseman and right fielder

Another factor in increased risk is that fans sit closer to the field than before, with Grow and Flagel estimating that attendees are 21% closer to the action. Which means the ball needs less time to travel to the stands and fans have less time to react. The combination of closer proximity and higher speeds leave fans with little time to duck.

“For a foul ball hit at 80 miles per hour, this means that a fan in 1920 would have had around six-tenths of a second to shield themselves from the ball, while a fan today would have less than one-half of a second to react.”

— Nathaniel Grow and Zachary Flagel, The Faulty Law and Economics of the “Baseball Rule"

And this is without taking into account that season tickets are now common and might leave fans with little opportunity to chose a protected seat. There are also far more distractions now at a baseball game, then there were a hundred years ago, dividing fans’ attention. Also, should the Baseball Rule even be applied to things that are not baseballs, such as t-shirts or hot dogs that are launched into the crowd?

As injuries rack up, courts, the legislature, and even MLB itself are considering what they can do to better protect fans. The courts have declined to apply the rule in recent cases, critics are pressuring Congress to act, and MLB has mandated more screening. The Baseball Rule might be in its final chapters as legal doctrine, but baseball will be around for at least another two centuries.

So this season, whether you choose to watch from your couch or in the crowd, let’s wish everyone a great (and safe) game. Go ‘Stros!

Interested in reading more about baseball and the law? Check out:

• Jackie Robinson: An MVP On and Off the Field

• You're Out!

• Out-of-this-World Series!

Mission 2025: Lunar Eclipses, Moon dust, and the Law

Buckle up Houston, because we’re in for a sight. This week, on March 13th and 14th, we will be treated to a total lunar eclipse. Total lunar eclipses are rare, and we’re on the right side of the world to enjoy a prime view. Starting at 10:57 PM on March 13, 2025, residents of the Earth’s western hemisphere can watch it all go down.

A lunar eclipse is sometimes called a blood moon, because of the orange or reddish color it turns. The more clouds or dust that are in the Earth atmosphere, the redder it turns! No equipment is needed to watch the lunar eclipse, so you could stay up late and see the whole event go down with your own eyes. For any night owls hoping to catch totality, that will be at 1:26 AM. The eclipse will end at 5 AM on March 14, 2025.

“During a lunar eclipse, the Moon appears red or orange because any sunlight that’s not blocked by our planet is filtered through a thick slice of Earth’s atmosphere on its way to the lunar surface. It’s as if all the world’s sunrises and sunsets are projected onto the Moon.”

— Caela Barry, NASA

While a lunar eclipse would be a spectacle no matter where on Earth you’re seeing it from, this time, we’ll have visuals from space! Blue Ghost Mission 1 is on the moon and will capture the total eclipse, and a lunar sunset for the first time ever on March 16th. But why is Blue Ghost Mission 1 up there in the first place?

To study lunar regolith! Regolith, also known as “moon dust,” proved quite the challenge for the Apollo Moon missions. NASA has come pretty far since then, but they hope to expand their understanding of how the moon’s dusty surface interacts with spacecrafts and payloads. Not only will this new data help support future lunar missions, they’ll also help in Mars exploration as well.

Here on Earth, we’ve discovered that moon dust isn’t a challenge just restricted to astronauts. Quite a few people have found themselves in legal crosshairs over out-of-this world marvels. For more information on the fascinating question over who owns space objects, check out our Who Owns Space Stuff? blog.

For further reading:

• Apollo 11 Moon Landing, 50th Anniversary

• Conflicts in Space and the Rule of Law

• NewSpace Commercialisation and the Law

Still interested in the growing field of space law? Take a look at our digital exhibit!

And if you’re interested in seeing those amazing shots of the eclipse and lunar sunset, follow the live updates from Blue Ghost Mission 1!

Judge, Attorney, Plaintiff: 3 Oscar Films You Should Watch

The Academy Awards are a time to celebrate cinema by honoring the best films of the year.

Do filmgoers always agree with the Academy about which films are best? No, but among the 2025 Oscar nominees are three stories involving the legal system, and they are all worth watching.

---

The Judge: The Seed of the Sacred Fig

If a judge is told what his rulings will be, is he really a judge? And if he is told what his judgments will be, what is the worth of law in his decisions? These are some of the many questions this film presents.

Iman is an honest lawyer and a devout Muslim. He has a wife and two girls. Their mostly comfortable lives in Tehran are disrupted when Iman is promoted to investigating judge, while Iran itself is rocked by protests. Then Iman discovers he is meant to sign off on judgements his superiors want, without review. Including cases with death sentences. All of this is recipe enough for a disaster, but then another volatile ingredient is added: a gun.

Iman was given the weapon for his safety. During the course of the film, in which his daughters’ disgust with the regime grows as his connection to them falters, it disappears. Who could have taken it? The only possible culprits are his family. Corruption and paranoia lead Iman to believe he can pass judgment on his family.

Judges are not immune to corruption or unjust rulings, in any country. This film is an intimate view into how intelligent and thoughtful people can be made complicit by the systems they work under.

“...when someone submits to an authoritarian situation and becomes devoted to its system, and gradually becomes biased about it, the question is: how could this bias lead to great violence, even against people close to you, not just against those outside your family...In the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are many examples in which even fathers played a role in the executions of their sons...”

— Director Mohammad Rasoulof, interview with RogerEbert.com

Nominated for Best International Feature Film

The Attorney: I’m Still Here

Eunice Paiva was a world renowned lawyer, and the first waves she ever made were over her husband. Rubens Paiva was a civil engineer and a former congressman. And he was on the wrong side of the new regime in Brazil. One day, their home is raided and he is taken. Eunice is left with their five children and no answers as to what happened to her husband.

She realizes early on that he has been killed. One of the many people who were vanished by the regime. But Eunice never stopped asking questions. It was a defiance that put her in the crosshairs and began her years long crusade against the government. She enrolled in law school and became a leading expert on indigenous rights in Brazil. She went on to work with the Brazilian government, the World Bank, and the United Nations.

While the film revolves around the mystery of what happened to Rubens Paiva, it is more concerned about the justice he was owed and the people who mourned him. How do you live with a loss that has no answers—or rather, what happens when the government is the one who wrongs you?

You right it.

“...She always said she understood that what happened to her family was no different from what happened every day with minorities in the suburbs of Brazil. She fought for Indigenous reserves and consulted with those who wrote Brazil’s constitution in 1988. She was a woman ahead of her time, and she became herself when her family’s father figure died.”

— Actress Fernanda Torres, portraying Eunice Paiva, interview with Vogue

Nominated for Best Picture, Best International Feature Film, and Best Actress (Torres)

The Plaintiff: Black Box Diaries

Shiori Itô’s story is both familiar and also the snowball that became an avalanche. In 2015, Shiori was a young journalism student. She agreed to a meal with Noriyuki Yamaguchi, the Washington Chief of the Tokyo Broadcasting System. They were to discuss a possible internship. Instead the night ended in sexual assault.

Despite there being video of an inebriated Shiori being pulled into a hotel by her assailant, she faced an uphill climb to get justice. The police did not want to accept her report and later dropped the charges against Yamaguchi. According to prosecutors, there was no evidence. Unable to bring a criminal case, she went public and filed a civil lawsuit against Yamaguchi. The blowback she faced was immense, and from every sector of Japanese society. It forced a light on the ways legal systems can leave victims like Shiori with little recourse. Shiori became the face of the #MeToo movement in Japan.

Black Box Diaries is the experience of a reporter telling her own story, to find her own resolution. The film ends with a court ruling in her favor, but leaves viewers with a sobering reminder of how harrowing a plaintiff’s experience with the legal system can be.

“No matter where there is a better law to protect survivor, I see every single audience eyes that they are carrying something similar or they know someone they love. I feel it, and it’s really emotional moment every time I go into the theater and feel it. How universal this experience is.”

— Director Shiori Itô, interview with All Of It on WNYC

Nominated for Best Documentary Feature

---

Each story is from the perspective of someone with a different, yet vital role in the legal system. The reasons behind how people end up in these roles are important. This Oscar season, we hope you enjoy this look inside why people make the decisions they do inside, and outside, the court room.

Interested in more of our Oscar takes? Check out last year’s post on The Barber of Little Rock, Justice Goes to the Movies: CDFIs and the Racial Wealth Gap!