Abstract
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.
Recommended Citation
Ross H. Freeman,
The (Hot) Dog Days of Summer: Missouri’s “Baseball Rule” Takes a Strike,
80 Mo. L. Rev.
(2015)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol80/iss2/11