Precedent Cases In The Martinez Case

In this case, precedent cases played a huge role. The reason is that the scope of this case is relatively narrow. A person in the stands was hit by a foul ball and the person did not elect to sit behind a screen. Therefor, any case in which a person was hit with a fly ball will pretty much determine the results of this case. The first precedent case cited is Karen Friedman and Robert Friedman v. Houston Sports Association. In this case, the Friedmans were out at an Astros baseball game. They sat behind the first base dugout which was not a covered area. There were however, seats available behind the dugout were it was screened. The Astros were the defendants in the case since the incident happened in the Astrodome during an Astros game. …show more content…
This case also helped form the baseball room in which if people did not sit behind the screen provided then they are consenting to the fact they will assume the risk of being hit by a foul ball. The Texas Court of Appeals in the Martinez case found it important to be consistent with prior rulings so law and justice would be carried out fairly. Since the conditions and incident in both cases were similar, the judges in the Martinez case cited the baseball rule as one of the main reasons they sided with the Astros. Another case cited in the Martinez decision was Williams v. Houston Baseball Association. In this case Williams, a spectator at the Astros’ game was struck in the face with a foul ball. She claimed that the owner was negligent because there were no signs warning about the danger of foul balls. The court sided again with the Astros stating the owner provided some seats with screening and that it was not the owner’s responsibility to put out signs when the danger is obvious. Shirley Martinez tried to say she was not warned about the danger of not sitting behind the screen. The court cited the Williams case saying that it was not necessary to warn the spectators of an obvious danger. And a lack of signage is not negligence on the owner since it is not the duty of the owner to …show more content…
Wal-Mart had a small floor mat that was by a side-door. The mat had no marking to symbolize that it was there. When Henry got to it she walked on it and hit it so that the mat got wrapped up in Weldon’s feet causing her to trip and fall. She tried to sue Wal-Mart saying they did not indicate there was a mat and there was a ripple in the mat that caused Henry to hit it and it go on Weldon’s feet which made her trip. The court sided with Wal-Mart that they were not negligent and are not responsible for the damages done to Weldon. In the opinion they cited the Martinez case. This makes the Weldon case a Sheppard’s Case for the Martinez case. The Martinez case was reapplied by the judges in the Weldon case by citing some of the judge’s reasons for siding with the Astros. The part the Weldon judges reused was that in order for someone to prove a company negligent, the injury must come strictly from what the person was doing. So if a person was walking down a street and tripped on a crack in the sidewalk then they could sue for negligence since the injury came solely from walking and tripping on the crack. However, one can not claim negligence when the injury was caused by something that occurred because of what they were doing or a condition they created. In the Martinez case, Shirley Martinez did not choose to sit behind the net and was not paying attention to what was occurring on the