Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1716 Mark Prokop, et al., Appellants, vs. Independent School District #625, Respondent. Filed August 19, 2008 Affirmed Schellhas, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. C1-06-5821 Sharon L. Van Dyck, Van Dyck Law Firm, P.L.L.C., 1650 Interchange Tower, 600 Highway 169 South, Minneapolis, MN 55426 (for appellants) Lawrence M. Rocheford, Jessica E. Schwie, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, P.L.L.P., 8519 Eagle Point Boulevard, Suite 100, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Hudson, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Recreational-use immunity from claims based on the construction, operation, or

maintenance of recreational property includes immunity from claims based on movable equipment and safety equipment provided to facilitate the use of recreational property. 2. An openly visible condition is not hidden for purposes of the trespasser-liability

exception to recreational-use immunity when the condition is readily observable, regardless of whether the plaintiff actually sees the condition or perceives its danger.

3.

A landowner has no duty to protect trespassers from conditions that are obviously

dangerous. OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellants challenge a district court ruling that (1) respondent Independent School District #625 is protected from suit by recreational-use immunity, (2) the trespasserliability exception to recreational-use immunity does not apply, (3) the landowner had no duty, and (4) the risk of the activity was assumed. Because we conclude that

recreational-use immunity applies, that the trespasser-liability exception does not apply, and that respondent had no duty to protect against an obviously dangerous condition, we affirm. FACTS Appellant Mark Prokop (Prokop)1 was hit in the face by a baseball when he pitched for recreational batting practice using a batting cage located on a St. Paul publicschool field. The batting cage was equipped with an L-screen, a piece of movable equipment used to protect a pitcher in batting practice. The L-screen is an L-shaped metal frame with netting draped over it. When pitching with an L-screen, the pitcher's face, arm, and upper body are exposed during the pitch until the ball is released, when the pitcher moves behind the screen. While using the L-screen, Prokop was struck with a ball batted by his son, when he ducked behind the L-screen. Prokop did not see the ball

1

There are two appellants in this case, Prokop and his wife, Jacqueline Prokop. In this opinion, the term "Prokop" refers to Mark Prokop. 2

before it hit him and did not see whether it went through the netting. Prokop's son testified that he saw the ball head toward the screen but did not see the ball either hit or go through the netting. Pictures of the L-screen reflect its condition shortly after the accident. Both the pictures and testimony reveal that the netting had plainly visible holes, gaps, and repair knots. Prokop's son testified that the condition of the netting could be seen and was not hidden. No one had complained to the school district about the condition of the L-screen or its netting, requested its repair, or requested its replacement. Appellants sued respondent, claiming that Prokop's injuries were the result of respondent's negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to respondent on the bases that (1) respondent has recreational-use immunity under Minn. Stat.

Download A07-1716, Mark Prokop, et al., Appellants, vs. Independent School District #625,

Minnesota Law