Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Jasper v. Chicago Nat'l League Ball Club, Inc.

Jasper v. Chicago Nat'l League Ball Club, Inc.

Case Date: 12/08/1999
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-97-3360, 3632, 4221 cons.

Jasper v. Chicago Nat'l League Ball Club, Inc., Nos. 1-97-3360, 1-97-3632, & 1-97-4221, cons.

1st District, December 08, 1999 (NUNC PRO TUNC August 25, 1999)

THIRD DIVISION

JAMES JASPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL CLUB, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

(Earl Santee, Joseph Spear, and Hellmuth Obata and Kassabaum, Inc., Olson Brothers and Sons Construction, and Floyd Steel Erectors,

Defendants).

 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County

No. 97 L 618

Honorable Joseph Casciato, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAHILL delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff James Jasper sued the owner of Wrigley Field, Chicago National League Ball Club (the Cubs), after he was struck by a foul ball during a Chicago Cubs baseball game. In a four-count complaint, plaintiff alleged that before 1992 a net hung between the upper deck and a backstop behind home plate at Wrigley Field. In 1992, the Cubs removed the net when it built "skyboxes" behind home plate just below the upper deck.

Count I of plaintiff's complaint alleged that the Cubs assumed a duty to protect patrons from foul balls by installing the original netting and that this duty was breached when the Cubs willfully and wantonly, or negligently, removed the netting, failed to warn patrons of the increased risk, failed to offer safer seating, and allowed the sale of food and beverages in an area where vendors would distract patrons from approaching foul balls. Counts II and III alleged that the same omissions amounted to negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Count IV sought a declaration that the Baseball Facility Liability Act (745 ILCS 38/1 et seq. (West 1996)) (the Baseball Act or Act), is unconstitutional special legislation and denies plaintiff equal protection under the Illinois and United States Constitutions.

The Cubs moved to dismiss count IV. The trial court granted the motion. The court also granted the Cubs' subsequent motion to dismiss count III and other parts of the complaint to the extent that they alleged negligence rather than willful and wanton conduct.

Plaintiff argues on appeal that the Baseball Act is unconstitutional special legislation (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV,