Ross H. Freeman


Part II of this Note provides the facts and holding of Coomer. Part III discusses the legal background of Coomer, including the adoption of comparative negligence in Missouri, Missouri’s baseball rule, and other persuasive baseball rule authority the court used in Coomer. Part IV analyzes the court’s application of the law to the specific facts in Coomer. Finally, Part V discusses the court’s decision and explains why the court should have adopted a broader definition of what constitutes an “inherent risk” of attending an MLB game in person.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.