Massa, J.
“It’s hard not to be romantic about baseball.” [Footnote omitted.[ But are stadiums and franchises, by virtue of baseball’s status as our national pastime, governed not by our standard principles of premises liability but rather entitled to a special limited-duty rule? We think not. Nevertheless, we find the defendant in this case is entitled to summary judgment, so we reverse the trial court.
….
As a threshold matter, amicus curiae Indianapolis Indians urges us to dispose of DeJesus’s premises liability and negligence claims in one fell swoop by adopting the so-called Baseball Rule. Although we appreciate a well-turned double play, we will take this particular pitch.
The Baseball Rule provides that a ballpark operator that “provides screening behind home plate sufficient to meet ordinary demand for protected seating has fulfilled its duty with respect to screening and cannot be subjected to liability for injuries resulting to a spectator by an object leaving the playing field.” Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 635 N.W.2d 219, 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). This special limited duty was first applied in Crane v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 153 S.W. 1076, 1077 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913), in which the Missouri Court of Appeals stated a ballpark operator could satisfy his duty of reasonable care to spectators by “provid[ing] screened seats in the grand stand, and g[iving] plaintiff the opportunity of occupying one of those seats.” Id. at 1077; see also Edling v. Kansas City Baseball & Exhibition Co., 168 S.W. 908, 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1914) (adding that the duty to provide some screened seats includes an obligation “to exercise reasonable care to keep the screen free from defects”). It has been judicially adopted in many jurisdictions across the country. [Footnote omitted.}
….
…Nevertheless, we are not convinced that any sport, even our national pastime, merits its own special rule of liability. We have said before that “it is neither necessary nor appropriate for sports events to be distinguished and given such special treatment.” Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552, 555 (Ind. 1987)….
…
We therefore reverse the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion today.
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Rush, JJ., concur.