Keith Rawlins and his daughter, Jenna, attended the July 20, 2012, baseball game between the Cleveland Indians and the Baltimore Orioles. That night, following the game, the Indians were hosting a post-game fireworks display. As a result, the Cleveland Fire Department ordered that certain sections of spectator seating had to be vacated prior to the display. The Rawlinses’ seats were in one of those sections. Rawlins and his daughter claimed that ushers indicated that they had to vacate their seats prior to the end of the game. Though they did not want to leave, they complied, and as they proceeded up the steps to leave the stadium, Rawlins was struck in the head with a foul ball. Rawlins was seriously injured as a result, and Jenna suffered emotional trauma from seeing her father injured in this way. They sued the Indians. Based on the discussion of the common law “baseball rule” in the Coomer case in this chapter and the precedents that applied and declined to apply it, if you were the judge in this case, would you apply the baseball rule to shield the Cleveland Indians from liability or would you distinguish this case from those where the baseball rule applies? Why?