We were at my son's high school baseball game yesterday and one of the players hit a foul ball into the parking lot. It hit my car windshield and smashed it. I do not have coverage to replace it under my auto insurance. The school will not reimburse us either. Someone told us that the homeowners insurance of the player who hit the ball should cover it (we know the player). Is this correct?

ScottGem

Judy is correct, signs saying use at your own risk do not remove liability for negligence. A lot will depend on the judge and/or jury in a case. They will tend to apply some responsibility to the user, but not releive the provider. For example, all ski slopes have such signs, but is a trail is poorly groomed or its difficult poorly marked then the slope operator can be held responsible for any accident.

ballengerb1

This has been my point since we started, posting a sign does not make you waive your rights, if anything it shows the property owner was aware of the problem to begin with. School are notorious for reasoning its cheaper to pay an ocassional settlement than to buy insurance. I.E. you'd think a school would have insurance for broken windows but they don't. Also, let's not forget the batter, he has some exposure here too.

JudyKayTee

Absolutely - and whether or not it is advisable to let the World know you were aware there could be a problem is up to the individual.

When I investigate a dog bite the first thing I look for is a "Beware of Dog" sign. Law in NYS has found the sign Indicates the homeowner was aware there could be a problem.

I have big dogs and I handle it with a sign that says, "I can make it to the fence in 10 seconds. Can you?" and has a drawing of a dog on it.

I know it's a matter of phrasing but the law doesn't always make sense.

(Does this mean when you drive on over to renovate my bathroom and hand me a card that says, "If I blow up your house I'm not responsible" I should figure you really ARE responsible - ?)