不必要
In civil litigation courts grant a fair deal of leeway for injuries sustained in sport. To heavy a hand might deter participants from full good faith involvement. Players assume the risk of injury. Can't sue for something that's just a necessary part of the game. The same goes for spectators in many circumstances. If you twist your wrist trying to catch a foul ball, don't expect any judge to grant you damages. Just part of the game, after all.
Most injuries that occur in sport, even for spectators, could not be prevented without seriously altering the way the game is played. You can't surround an entire baseball stadium in protective glass to avoid errant foul balls. Teams just have to make sure that the fans are aware of the situation and hope they keep aware. Loose balls are a necessary part of the game.
After an injury at a minor league baseball game in Rancho Cucamonga (one of my favorite cities to pronounce out loud), a California court had to consider a new variation on spectator litigation:
Are mascots a necessary part of the game?
"Tremor" seen here before devouring 5 hot dogs, 7 beers, a box of Cracker Jacks, and 2 players yet to be named.
The Rancho Cucamonga (cannot say that name too many times in a day) mascot, Tremor, was scuttling about entertaining fans when a foul ball flew into his section of the seats. As it so happened, the very same fan he had been distracting from behind with his tail was standing directly in the path of the ball. Bonk ensued.
If mascots are necessary to the course of a baseball game, then the injury would be an inherent risk (no liability). Said the court, "foul balls represent an inherent risk to spectators attending baseball games...Can the same thing be said about the antics of the mascot? We think not."*
Wonder how they'd feel about the sausage race...
*Lowe v. California League of Professional Baseball
