Baseball comes through netting, strikes man in crotch. $600K. Stanislaus County.

Summary

Baseball coach standing next to batting cage is struck by ball that fractures his testicle.

The Case

  • Case Name: Lefebvre v. NC Valley Baseball, LLC
  • Court and Case Number: : Stanislaus County Superior Court / 2019247
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, October 11, 2017
  • Date Action was Filed: Monday, March 21, 2016
  • Type of Action: Negligence, Premises Liability, Highlighted Verdicts
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Timothy Salter
  • Plaintiffs:
    Craig Lefebvre, 23.
  • Defendants:
    N.C. Valley Baseball, LLC
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $600,000
  • Contributory/Comparative Negligence: 100% to defendant; 0% to plaintiff.
  • Economic Damages:

    Past economic damages: $18,000

    Future economic damages: $104,000

  • Non-Economic Damages:

    Past non-economic damages: $100,000

    Future non-economic damages: $378,000

  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 8 days.
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 1 3/4 hours.
  • Jury Polls: 10-2 on negligence of NC Valley Baseball, 9-3 on negligence of Craig Lefebvre, 9-3 that Craig Lefebvre’s negligence was not a substantial factor.

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood & Campora by Daniel Schneiderman, Sacramento.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Kronenberg Law Group by James Burns, Oakland.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

    Sarah Chan, M.D., urology, Modesto.

    Adam Bellinger, M.D., urology, Santa Rosa.

    Louis Giorgi, M.D., urology, Danville.

  • Defendant's Medical Expert(s):

    Patrick Bennett, M.D., urology, Walnut Creek.

  • Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):

    Agnes Grogan, R.N., past and future medical billing, Orange County.

    Thomas Jennings, C.S.E., safety engineering, Utah.

  • Defendant's Technical Expert(s):

    None.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    On January 21, 2016, plaintiff, a then 23-year-old coach of defendant’s U-10 baseball team, was preparing to leave defendant’s batting cage facility in Modesto. As plaintiff walked through a walkway area that separated the netted #2 and #3 batting lanes, a parent of one of plaintiff’s U-10 players approached him. While plaintiff spoke to the parent, a player hitting batting practice in the #3 batting lane struck a ball that traveled through the safety netting that ran between the #3 batting lane and the walkway area.

    Though it was unknown whether a hole in the safety netting along the #3 batting lane pre-existed the foul ball, it was uncontested that a ball traveled through the netting. The trajectory of the ball continued past the netting and struck plaintiff in the groin, causing his right testicle to fracture. Plaintiff underwent a scrotal exploration at the Kaiser Permanente emergency room to repair the right testicle. The repair resulted in a testicular volume loss of approximately 30%-50%. Following the surgery, plaintiff developed symptoms consistent with “chronic orchialgia,” or chronic pain of the testicle. Plaintiff’s treating Kaiser physicians testified that plaintiff would potentially benefit from a spermatic cord denervation or orchiectomy, but they could not testify that these procedures would occur in the future “to a degree of medical certainty.”

    It was determined at trial that defendant had installed used, donated netting during the initial installation of the facility in July 2012. Despite a minimum of thirty repairs to the netting over the next 3 1/2 years, defendant never replaced the netting at the location. In addition to other deficiencies (signage, warning, instruction), defendant also testified that it had no inspection procedure for the netting, no documentation to track repairs, and no formal instruction relative to use of the walkway area. The nets were ultimately destroyed 10 days following the subject incident when defendant changed to a new facility, and there was evidence that defendant had new nets available to install at the time of the incident. Defendant’s director of day-to-day operations and person most knowledgeable regarding safety, protocol and procedure also testified that “double netting,” something that was present between the batting lanes but not along the walkway area, would have reduced the possibility of injury to 0%.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    That defendant had notice of the defective nature of the nets, and that a reasonable inspection procedure or safety program would have revealed the dangerous condition prior to the incident. Also, that defendant failed to properly design the facility, both in its placement of the walkway between two batting lanes and its failure to “double net” the walkway area.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    Defendant contended that it was well known and “common knowledge” for people at the facility that they should not use the walkway area during active batting practice in the #2 and #3 lanes. Defendant also contended that it was “common sense” not to stand in the area during active batting practice, and that plaintiff was 100% at fault due to his extensive baseball experience and time at other batting cages.

Injuries and Other Damages

  • Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:

    Plaintiff suffered a testicular rupture/fracture of the right testicle. This required a scrotal exploration, leading to a bilateral orchiopexy and unilateral repair of the right testicle with debridement. Plaintiff claimed that he would require additional conservative care as well as future surgical procedures to resolve his ongoing chronic pain symptoms.

Special Damages

  • Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $18,242
  • Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $386,080
  • Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: N/A
  • Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: N/A

Additional Notes

Jury of 8 women and 4 men, 1 female alternate and 1 male alternate.

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.

© Copyright 2017 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. www.juryverdictalert.com