- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Baseball Rule
edit- ... that the Baseball Rule in American tort law holds that as long as a baseball team has protected seats available, fans injured by foul balls usually cannot hold the team liable? Source: "This Article examines the so-called 'Baseball Rule,' the legal doctrine generally immunizing professional baseball teams from liability when spectators are hit by errant balls or bats leaving the field of play." 60 William & Mary Law Review 59 (2018)
- ALT1:... that baseball spectators are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch? Source: "Bloomberg reported in 2014 that roughly 1,750 spectators a year are injured by batted balls at all of the major league ballparks throughout the United States. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch." SF Weekly; March 14, 2018
- Reviewed: Eleanor Barrow Chase
- Comment: I am aiming to have this on the Main Page on U.S. Major League Baseball Opening Day this year, March 28. As I type this I am still developing the article, so it may be possible that material supportive of other hooks will be added
Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 04:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
This impressive article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I don't believe there are any copyright issues (Earwig is down). A QPQ has been done. Creator requests this for March 28th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this. ALT1, while attention-grabbing, might be cited as an "Easter egg" hook. What about tweaking it, like:- ALT1a: ... that while baseball teams are legally required to provide protective seating, fans are more likely to be hit by a foul ball than players are to be hit by a pitch? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Fine; I thought that one was a stretch anyway, although it would have gotten clicks.
Having expanded the article some more, I have some new suggestions:
- ALT2:... that in 2013, the Idaho Supreme Court became the first U.S. state supreme court to reject the Baseball Rule? Source: "We Decline to Adopt the Baseball Rule", Idaho Supreme Court, Rountree v. Boise Baseball Club, 2013
- ALT3:
... that the Baseball Rule, protecting teams from liability over foul ball injuries to fans, dates from a 1913 Missouri appeals court decision?Source: A Foul Ball in the Courtroom: The Baseball Spectator Injury in the Courtroom as a Case of First Impression, University of Tulsa Law Review, Spring 2003, pp. 496–7: "The decision in Crane announced the existence of a limited but unwaiveable duty, and at the same time offered ballpark owners clear directions as to how to satisfy their obligations." Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thank you. But do you have a source for it being the first US state supreme court to do so? I'd rather go ahead with ALT0, which explains the law a bit, although I would change "usually" to "generally". Restoring tick for ALT0 per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Fine; I thought that one was a stretch anyway, although it would have gotten clicks.
