The Baseball Rule: Crying Foul or Reasonable Reassessment?

Happy baseball season!! Another year, another opportunity to repeatedly throw on your Astros gear and remind everyone who’s the best in the AL West.

The season is officially in full swing and baseball fans across the country (and Canada) are ready to cheer on their favorite teams. While I’ve enjoyed listening to games on the radio and watching them in the comfort of my own home, catching a game in the stadium is definitely something special. And if 2024’s attendance numbers are any indication, fans are in agreement. Over 71 million people went to MLB games last year, with the Houston Astros averaging 35,003 people per game.

But even though we look forward to snagging a seat in the stadium, it’s not all fun and games. Catching a foul ball is one of the best things that can happen to a fan. Getting hit by a foul ball, though? Incredibly painful. Baseball is an old sport, and no matter which source you cite, it’s not too far from its 200th year anniversary. So, it’s no surprise that foul balls have been around for a long time too. The first time a fan took the issue of foul ball injury to court was in 1913, in Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co. The court decided in favor of Kansas City, and this would be the origins of the Baseball Rule.

The Baseball Rule is a legal doctrine that professional baseball teams have limited liability regarding injuries caused by foul balls and baseballs leaving the field. The reasoning is that baseball has an inherent risk of balls flying into the stands, and by attending that game, people are accepting that risk. On the teams’ side, they have to meet two standards: first, teams are expected to install netting to protect the area of their stadiums most at risk, and second, teams must have an adequate number of screened seats to meet demand for protected seating during a game. If a team meets those requirements, then under the Baseball Rule, they are considered to have met the duty of care owed to attendees and cannot be held legally liable for their injuries.

The Baseball Rule is common law and has been upheld as precedent for over 100 years. It has actually only been codified in four states: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey. While the rule has been embraced by MLB teams, there has been growing sentiment among courts and fans that it is outdated.

Nathaniel Grow and Zachary Flagel point out in their work, The Faulty Law and Economics of the “Baseball Rule,” that courts have held “the most dangerous area” of a stadium to only be the “sections of seats located immediately behind home plate.” Given how the game has changed, that might not be adequate anymore. Pitchers throw faster and batters hit harder now then they have in the past, creating a much larger area for baseballs to go flying into. This creates a problem, as netting has not kept up. There is also the fact that, with balls coming off the bat harder and faster than ever, there is even less reaction time now. The best of MLB’s bats regularly hit a baseball over 100 miles an hour. Houston Astros’ own Yordan Alvarez has hit a homer at 117.7 mph.

“Even if I’m watching a game, and a 105 mph foul ball comes at me, and I’m ready for it, there’s still a good chance I could miss it.”

— Garret Jones, former MLB first baseman and right fielder

Another factor in increased risk is that fans sit closer to the field than before, with Grow and Flagel estimating that attendees are 21% closer to the action. Which means the ball needs less time to travel to the stands and fans have less time to react. The combination of closer proximity and higher speeds leave fans with little time to duck.

“For a foul ball hit at 80 miles per hour, this means that a fan in 1920 would have had around six-tenths of a second to shield themselves from the ball, while a fan today would have less than one-half of a second to react.”

— Nathaniel Grow and Zachary Flagel, The Faulty Law and Economics of the “Baseball Rule"

And this is without taking into account that season tickets are now common and might leave fans with little opportunity to chose a protected seat. There are also far more distractions now at a baseball game, then there were a hundred years ago, dividing fans’ attention. Also, should the Baseball Rule even be applied to things that are not baseballs, such as t-shirts or hot dogs that are launched into the crowd?

As injuries rack up, courts, the legislature, and even MLB itself are considering what they can do to better protect fans. The courts have declined to apply the rule in recent cases, critics are pressuring Congress to act, and MLB has mandated more screening. The Baseball Rule might be in its final chapters as legal doctrine, but baseball will be around for at least another two centuries.

So this season, whether you choose to watch from your couch or in the crowd, let’s wish everyone a great (and safe) game. Go ‘Stros!

Interested in reading more about baseball and the law? Check out:

• Jackie Robinson: An MVP On and Off the Field

• You're Out!

• Out-of-this-World Series!

It’s Día de Muertos! Remember That Time When Disney Tried to Trademark It?

All publicity is good publicity—until the ghost of bad PR comes a knockin’.  

Earlier this year, Disney tried to argue that by agreeing to the terms and conditions of a Disney+ account, the account holder couldn’t sue them for wrongful death. They quickly backtracked after a huge outcry, but this isn’t the first time Disney has landed themselves in the court of public opinion due to their legal maneuvering. 

Disney’s legal arm is very long, experienced, and generally pretty successful. For example, did you know Disney impacted U.S. copyright law to the point that the 1998 extension is nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act? Currently, copyright lasts for the life of the author, plus seventy years after the author’s death. If you’ve ever wondered, huh, that seems rather long? Well, Disney, and other companies interested in protecting their IP, had a hand in that. 

Suffice to say, Disney has never been one to shy away from protecting their intellectual property. So with that in mind, you can sort of follow the logic behind the disastrous attempt to trademark “Día de Muertos.” 

“A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. It’s how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors.”

— United States Patent and Trademark Office

A trademark is meant to identify the source of goods or services, provide legal protection for a brand, and help guard against counterfeiting and fraud. And back in 2013, Disney knew they wanted to make a film about the Mexican holiday Día de Muertos, also known as Día de los Muertos and Day of the Dead. So they decided to establish their trademark for the film.  

The idea was to trademark “Día de los Muertos” and any themed merchandise, such as “fruit preserves, fruit-based snacks, toys, games, clothing, footwear, backpacks, clocks and jewelry.”

Unsurprisingly, there was massive backlash. Día de Muertos is a beloved holiday in Mexico and observed throughout Latin America and in the U.S. It’s a time to honor loved ones who have passed and celebrate their memory. Even the suggestion that a U.S. based company would try to trademark such an important part of Mexican culture, inspired some passionate responses. The most memorable of which was political cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz’s take on the the situation, Muerto Mouse. 

Disney appears to have taken all that criticism to heart, as Alcaraz went on to join Pixar as a consultant for their Day of the Dead film. In this case, listening to the backlash resulted in a more authentic story that eventually became Coco. The film was wildly popular, especially in Mexico. Reader, I saw that movie twice in theaters. 

If you’re interested in learning more about Día de los Muertos, like the fact it’s actually two days, please check out this wonderful guide by the National Museum of the American Latino. There are a lot of ways to celebrate Day of the Dead and not a lot ways to get it wrong.

Unless you try to trademark it, of course. 

Mutiny? The Port Chicago Trial and Houston's Own Local History

80 years ago today, one of the most infamous mutiny trials in U.S. history ended.

It would not be until July 17th, 2024, that all of the seamen involved would be exonerated by the U.S. Navy. However, many people are still unaware of the Port Chicago Mutiny trial and its historical context. This incident began after a massive wartime disaster on the Navy base, and soon over 200 Black Navy seamen were accused of mutiny for refusing to load weapons in the unsafe working conditions at Port Chicago.

What is mutiny? 

Mutiny is a serious offense in both military and naval contexts. It is defined as the act of openly resisting, disobeying, or attempting to overthrow lawful authority, particularly by soldiers or sailors against their commanding officers. In legal terms, mutiny typically involves a group of individuals acting together to refuse orders, revolt, or disrupt military operations.

The United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses mutiny or sedition in 10 U.S. Code Art. 94. (§ 894.) and states "A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct".

Image by Petra from Pixabay

Key Elements of Mutiny:

- Open rebellion: A refusal to obey orders or attempt to overthrow authority.

- Group action: Typically involves multiple individuals acting together in defiance of orders.

- Serious disruption of order: Mutiny usually leads to a breakdown of discipline, jeopardizing the safety or mission of the military unit or nation.

Examples of Mutiny in U.S. History:

• The USS Somers Mutiny (1842):

A notable example from the early 19th century involved a young officer named Philip Spencer aboard the USS Somers, a U.S. Navy training vessel. Spencer, along with several other crew members, was accused of plotting a mutiny to take control of the ship. In response to the potential threat, the ship’s captain ordered the immediate hanging of Spencer and two others. This case raised questions about the application of mutiny charges and the severity of the punishment.

• The SS Columbia Eagle (1970):

This incident occurred during the Vietnam War, when two sailors aboard a U.S. merchant ship mutinied and hijacked the ship in protest and ordered the crew to sail to Cambodia. On November 4, 1970, one of the alleged mutineers, Clyde McKay, escaped from Cambodian government custody, allegedly planning to join the Khmer Rouge. The circumstances surrounding his death are unconfirmed but his remains were repatriated to U.S. custody in 1990. His co-defendant Alvin Glatkowski was tried and found guilty in U.S. Federal Court on charges including mutiny. He was sentenced to ten years in prison in 1971.

From TradingCardsNPS- Port Chicago Disaster | Concord, California July 17, 1944 Du… | Flickr

Port Chicago Disaster and Mutiny Trial

The "Port Chicago Mutiny" took place on July 17, 1944 at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in California, a key facility for the U.S. Navy during World War II. The incident occurred when African American sailors, performing the dangerous task of loading munitions onto ships, protested the unsafe working conditions and the poor treatment they faced due to racial discrimination. The armed forces were still segregated at the time.

A catastrophic explosion at the facility killed 320 sailors and civilians and injured 390 others, many of whom were Black sailors. Afterwards, 258 of the remaining sailors refused to continue working under the same hazardous conditions, without proper safety measures being implemented. The work stoppage was driven by reasonable concern about the unsafe conditions, as well as the denial of 30-day "survivor leave" to Black sailors, which included those injured in the blast. The sailors who had just witnessed and helped clean up the aftermath of a horrendous explosion caused by the pressure to quickly load explosives, without proper training, became overwhelmed with the situation and simply stopped marching when ordered to load another barge. After some confusion from superiors, the men continued to refuse orders to load the munitions and were marched to a barge where they would be imprisoned for several days.

In response, the U.S. Navy charged 50 of the sailors with mutiny for their refusal to work and the other 208 were court-martialed for disobeying orders and suffered loss of pay and benefits. The trial, held in 1944, was one of the most significant and controversial military trials of the war. Thurgood Marshall, then working for the NAACP, provided legal counsel to their lawyer, Gerald E. Veltmann, and helped publicize the case. He argued that the men were not mutineers but victims of gross negligence and racial injustice. 

The seamen were found guilty of mutiny, and 49 of them were sentenced to varying terms of prison. None received the death penalty, as was a possibility under mutiny charges. Their convictions did not sit well with many in the military or civil rights organizations, including First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who viewed the trial as unjust. The sailors’ actions were seen by many as a legitimate protest against dangerous working conditions and racial discrimination, and campaigns from the NAACP continued in their defense. Forty-seven of the men were released in 1946, after the sentences were reduced due to the ending of the war and an appeal brief filed by Thurgood Marshall.

The Port Chicago incident and the subsequent trial highlighted systemic racism within the U.S. military and raised public awareness about the treatment of African American soldiers during World War II. President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 9981 in 1948, which mandated the desegregation of the armed forces. This order was a direct response to the pressures and injustices revealed by incidents like the Port Chicago trial.

64 Members of the 24th Infantry were present at the Mutiny Trial in November 1917. Image available on the Internet and included in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.

The Houston Riot of 1917

The Port Chicago incident and the aftermath of the trial stands in contrast to a similar situation which happened right here in Houston, 27 years prior. The Houston Riot of 1917 was a violent confrontation between African American soldiers stationed at Camp Logan and white police and armed citizens.

The riot occurred in August 1917 against the backdrop of racial tension in Houston. Many white residents were hostile toward the armed Black servicemen entering the city. African American soldiers from the 24th Infantry Regiment were stationed at Camp Logan, a military base located outside the city, where they had experienced unwelcome treatment and were treated as second-class citizens.

What would be described as a race riot began after a white police officer, J. H. C. Bell, assaulted a Black woman and arrested a Black soldier who intervened. When Cpl. Charles Baltimore, a Black military policemen with the battalion, inquired about the arrest, an argument ensued and the policeman assaulted Baltimore. He then shot at him three times as he fled and chased him into an unoccupied house before taking him to police headquarters. A group of soldiers from Camp Logan decided to march on the police station, in current day Fourth Ward, to secure his release.

The situation escalated when soldiers heard rumors of a white mob coming to attack them. They armed themselves and began to march into the city, firing toward where they believed would-be attackers were located. For roughly two hours after they clashed with local police and armed white residents. During the violence, sixteen white people, including police officers, were killed, and numerous others were injured. Four Black servicemen were also killed.

Following the riot, authorities rounded up 118 Black soldiers, many of whom were accused of participating in the violence and many who were likely uninvolved. The court martial for the soldiers was conducted in two days and the soldiers were not given time for a proper defense or allowed an appeal. A total of 110 soldiers were found guilty. A total of 19 men were hanged, while 63 received life sentences. This severe punishment reflected the prevailing racial attitudes and the desire by authorities to send a strong message to Black soldiers and the Black community.

However, soon after this event, the U.S. Army changed its uniform code of military justice to prevent executions without a meaningful appeal. The Houston Riot of 1917 is still viewed as a symbol of the racial tensions and systemic racism faced by Black soldiers during World War I. In November 2023, the Army set aside all 110 convictions and granted the men honorable discharges, acknowledging they were not given fair trials and faced threats and provocations leading up to the event.

A Long Road to Exoneration

Thurgood Marshall was inspired by events like those in Camp Logan to take up the cause of the Port Chicago 50. At the time, the NAACP was following cases of Black servicemen being assaulted or lynched and other white supremacist violence and discrimination experienced by servicemen, which had grown after the first World War.  His work on this case led to a very different outcome for the sailors at Port Chicago and influenced the legal desegregation of the Armed Forces. However, as with many other instances, the legal desegregation of the Navy did not immediately solve the issues at hand. De facto segregation and discrimination continued.

Although not charged with mutiny, nineteen Black sailors were charged following an alleged race riot aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, off the coast of Vietnam on Oct. 11, 1972. The crewmen were protesting a perceived imbalance in the enforcement of discipline between white and Black sailors by officers on board. Nearly 60 crewmen were wounded in a two-day disturbance. Shortly after, interracial fighting broke out onboard the USS Constellation, which led to sit-in strikes onboard by Black sailors. In contrast to the peaceful protest of the Port Chicago seamen in 1944, the Navy chose not to define these events as mutinies. However, the Black sailors were punished in both instances. 

In 1999, Port Chicago survivor Freddie Meeks was officially pardoned by President Bill Clinton, and the case became a symbol of the broader struggles for civil rights and racial equality in the military. All 258 men involved were not officially exonerated until July 2024. Ultimately, the trial and following support for the Port Chicago sailors was a significant turning point in addressing race relations in the U.S. armed forces. Yet, incidents such as those on the USS Kitty Hawk and USS Constellation show Black servicemen still had a long road ahead in achieving equitable conditions and treatment in the U.S. armed forces after desegregation.

A detailed history of the Port Chicago disaster and mutiny trial can be found in the book The Port Chicago 50: Disaster, Mutiny, and the Fight for Civil Rights by Steve Sheinkin. It is also covered in an Emmy Award winning documentary from 1990 presented by Danny Glover. You can view more history and archival documents from the Port Chicago Alliance and the National Park Service's website for the National Memorial for Port Chicago.