Morrison Mahoney Partner John Knight and Associate Kavya Verma recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of Nipmuc Youth Baseball, Inc. in a premises liability action arising from an alleged trip-and-fall at a public park.
Plaintiff attended her grandson’s t-ball game at Memorial Park in Mendon and claimed she was injured when she stepped into a tire rut while walking around a pickup truck parked near the baseball fields. She alleged that the youth baseball league was negligent in permitting vehicles to park in areas that created a hazardous condition and relied primarily on her testimony that an unidentified individual appeared to be directing vehicles where to park. Plaintiff argued that this individual was acting as the league’s agent and that the league therefore exercised control over the parking area.
John and Kavya successfully demonstrated that the league had no ownership, possession, or control over the area where the incident occurred. In support of the motion, they relied on both the co-defendant Town of Mendon’s testimony and the Town’s field-use agreement with the league, which established that the league’s authority was limited to the baseball fields themselves. The evidence further showed that the league had no authority over public parking areas, could not direct where visitors parked, could not exclude members of the public from the surrounding park property, and had no responsibility for maintaining, inspecting, or repairing the area where the plaintiff fell.
John and Kavya also challenged the plaintiff’s contention that the unidentified individual was acting on the league’s behalf, arguing that there was no evidence connecting the individual to the league and that any assistance provided to parkgoers was equally consistent with the actions of a volunteer bystander or Good Samaritan.
The Court agreed, finding that the league’s permit extended only to the use of the baseball fields and that control of the parking areas remained exclusively with the Town. The Court further concluded that there was no evidence that the league created the alleged hazard, controlled the
vehicle at issue, directed parking operations, or otherwise exercised control over the location where the plaintiff was injured.
Having found no evidence that the league owed a duty to the plaintiff with respect to the parking area, the Court allowed the league’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against it.
