Payne v. MLB Lawsuit: Claims, Appeal, and Netting Changes

Payne v. MLB was a 2015 class action that asked a federal court to order Major League Baseball to install protective netting from foul pole to foul pole at every ballpark. A judge in the Northern District of California dismissed the case in November 2016 for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in December 2017.¹ The plaintiffs never won a ruling, but by 2020 every MLB club had voluntarily extended netting well beyond the dugouts.²

Who Sued and What They Wanted

The complaint was filed on July 13, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.³ Lead plaintiff Gail Payne was an Oakland Athletics season-ticket holder who sat in sections 211 and 215 at the Oakland Coliseum, along the baselines where no netting was in place. Payne had never been hit, but said she spent games “ducking and dodging balls.”⁴ The second named plaintiff, Stephanie Smith, said she was struck by a ball at Dodger Stadium on June 7, 2015.⁵ They were represented by Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Robert Hilliard and Marion Reilly of Hilliard Muñoz Gonzales LLP.⁶

The core demand was injunctive relief. The plaintiffs asked the court to order MLB to retrofit every stadium with netting extending from foul pole to foul pole by the 2016–2017 season, and to require the same in any new ballpark.⁷ The complaint labeled the unprotected areas along the first and third base lines the “Danger Zone,” describing line-drive foul balls that can reach 100 mph, errant throws, and pieces of shattered maple bats.⁶ It cited an estimate of roughly 1,750 spectator injuries per year at major league games, including skull fractures, blindness, concussions, and brain hemorrhages.⁸ The plaintiffs argued MLB compounded the problem by promoting JumboTron displays, wireless internet, and mascot activities that pull attention away from the field while marketing games as family entertainment.

The Legal Claims

The amended complaint named the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Commissioner Rob Manfred, and all 30 clubs. It pleaded six causes of action: negligence, fraudulent concealment, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a claim under California Civil Code § 1668, and Smith’s individual personal injury claim.⁴

The suit took direct aim at the “baseball rule,” the long-standing doctrine under which stadium operators satisfy their duty to spectators by providing a reasonable number of screened seats behind home plate and warning of the risk of flying objects. Fans, under that doctrine, assume the remaining risks of attending. The plaintiffs argued modern conditions had shifted the analysis, pointing to the NHL’s league-wide netting installation in 2002 after a 13-year-old spectator was killed in Columbus, and to Japanese professional baseball’s more comprehensive fan screening. They also cited player statements from the 2007 and 2012 collective bargaining talks in which several players said they would not let their own families sit in unscreened sections.⁸

Why the Case Was Dismissed

Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued the final dismissal on November 16, 2016.⁹ The ruling turned on Article III standing. Relying on MLB’s own data, the court found that the statistical risk of being hit was “only a small fraction of 1 percent,” and that neither plaintiff had shown a “credible or immediate threat” of future injury.¹⁰ Fans could choose screened seats, the judge noted, and Smith, already injured once, might actually face less risk than a typical spectator because of her heightened awareness.

The court did acknowledge that the “severity of injuries… in the modern era… is significantly more severe than in the past,” but concluded the standing threshold had not been met.¹⁰ The five class-wide counts were dismissed without leave to amend. Smith’s individual personal injury claim was dismissed without prejudice for improper venue, with the court directing her to refile in the Central District of California, where Dodger Stadium sits.⁴ Available records do not indicate whether she refiled.

The Ninth Circuit Appeal

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on December 8, 2017, in a memorandum disposition. Smith could not show a “certainly impending” or “substantial risk” of future injury because she did not plan to attend games unless seated in a screened area. Payne’s statistical chance of being hit in her sections came out to roughly 0.0027% per game, and the panel found she had not shown a meaningfully greater likelihood of injury than any other fan. The court rejected the argument that general anxiety about being struck was itself an injury, describing it as “fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending,” and held that a facility’s decision not to adopt a particular safety measure does not, standing alone, invade a legally protected interest.¹

What Changed in MLB Netting After the Case

MLB lost nothing in court, but the netting picture at its ballparks changed anyway. By December 2015, five months after the suit was filed, Commissioner Manfred had already recommended that clubs extend netting to the far ends of their dugouts. High-profile injuries kept the issue in the news: in September 2017, a toddler at Yankee Stadium was struck in the face by a foul ball estimated at 105 mph,¹¹ and in May 2019 a two-year-old at Minute Maid Park in Houston suffered a fractured skull and brain damage.²

In December 2019, Manfred announced that all 30 clubs would extend netting “substantially beyond the end of the dugout” for the 2020 season. Seven or eight teams committed to running netting all the way to the foul poles, and 15 planned to extend to the field’s “elbow” areas.² These were not imposed as a league rule; they came out of talks between the league office and individual clubs.¹² In December 2022, MLB required all minor league Professional Development League clubs to install foul-pole-to-foul-pole netting no later than the 2025 Opening Day.¹³

Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed credit. Steve Berman said his firm was “pleased to have pushed Major League Baseball to do the right thing — protect its fans,” calling the decision “better late than never.”¹⁴ Robert Hilliard described the lawsuit as the “first crack in the dam.”¹⁵ MLB’s own public statements about the expansion did not credit the Payne case, pointing instead to conversations with clubs and public concern following incidents involving children.¹²

1
FindLaw. Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
2
CNBC. Baseball Commissioner Says All 30 MLB Teams to Expand Protective Netting
3
Sports Litigation Alert. Payne Class Action Suit Against Major League Baseball Involving Baseball Rule Is Dismissed
4
Courthouse News Service. Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Order on Motion to Dismiss
5
vLex. Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
6
Top Class Actions. MLB Hit With Class Action Over Lack of Netting Protection for Fans From Foul Balls
7
Courthouse News Service. Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, First Amended Class Action Complaint
8
ESPN. Lawsuit Seeks Safety Netting at MLB Ballparks
9
Reuters. Lawsuit Over Lack of Baseball Netting for Fans Is Dismissed
10
Insurance Journal. Lawsuit Over Lack of Baseball Netting for Fans Is Dismissed
11
NBC News. Girl’s Injury Adds Pressure to Expand Ballpark Safety Nets
12
NBC News. Every Major League Baseball Team Will Expand Netting to Protect Fans
13
U.S. Senate – Senator Durbin. Durbin, MLB Announce New Netting Requirements for All Professional Development League Clubs
14
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Major League Baseball Foul Ball Injuries
15
Super Lawyers. Class Action Hastens MLB’s Extension of Safety Netting