Provide a summary (approx 150 words) supporting either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the facts of the case and your interpretation of the law. You need to do some research on the case selected and provide links to that research which assisted you in your decision. Check at least 2 other sources as part of your independent research.

The Houston Astros is a professional baseball team that is owned and operated by Houston McLane Company, LLC. Shirley and Richard Martinez, along with five young children they were caring for, attended a Houston Astros baseball game at a baseball stadium in Houston. Their seats were in the bleachers behind the right field wall, which is an area where a fly ball hit during the game would be a home run. The baseball stadium contains more than 40,000 seats, of which about 5,000 seats located behind home plate are shielded by a protective screen. The rest of the seats, including those in the right field bleachers where the Martinezes sat, were open and did not have a protective screen.

Prior to the game the teams were practicing on the field, including taking batting practice. When Shirley Martinez was walking on the steps near her seats carrying a young child, she heard someone yell a warning that a fly ball was coming toward her. She shielded the child with her arms and was struck in the face by the ball. She suffered an orbital fracture and corneal laceration. Martinez sued the owner of the Houston Astros professional baseball team to recover damages for negligence. Houston asserted in defense that Martinez had assumed the risk of getting hit by flying baseballs and it was therefore not liable for negligence. This is commonly referred to as the baseball rule.

What does the doctrine of assumption of the risk provide?

Do baseball spectators assume the risk of being hit by flying baseballs? Is the defendant owner liable for negligence?

Was it ethical for the baseball team owner not to pay Martinez for her injuries?