Please read one case below and tell me the trial result and your opinion about the trial result.

Case 4.3: Taylor v. Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P.

(reference link :

https://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar_case?case=2727992841479883794&q=Taylor+v.+Baseball+Club+of+Seattle,+L.P&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

Please copy the link and then paste it into the address bar!!)

During the pre-game warm-up to a Mariners game, Delinda Taylor was struck in the face by an errantly thrown baseball. To recover for her injuries, she sued the Mariners in a Washington state court, alleging negligence. The Mariners argued that Taylor, a Mariners fan, was familiar with the inherent risk of balls entering the stands, and thus assumed the risk of her injury. The court dismissed the case. Taylor appealed.

A state intermediate appellate court affirmed. There was substantial evidence that Taylor was familiar with the game. As a spectator in an unprotected area of seats, she voluntarily undertook the risk associated with being hit by an errant ball thrown during warm-ups before the start of the game. The Mariners had satisfied their duty to protect spectators from balls entering the stands by providing a protective screen behind home plate. Taylor chose not to sit in the protected area.