A foul ball to the face is not an anticipated part of the sport, nor an assumed risk for baseball spectators, according to an appeals court decision.

California's Second District Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday that installing protective netting along the first- and third-base lines at ball parks would not necessarily alter the nature of the game, signaling a shift in the court's interpretation of the primary assumption of risk doctrine.

A 12-year-old, referred to as Summer, brought the appeal against the United States Baseball Federation after a line drive foul ball damaged her optic nerve while attending the national team trials at California State University, Long Beach's Blair Field in 2014, according to the opinion. Upon appeal, she alleges that changes to the sport including front-row seating closer to the field and distractions such as digital advertising and enhanced WiFi to encourage social media engagement have increased the risks for spectators at the park.

In opposition to Los Angeles Superior Court, the appeals court found that professional and college baseball organizations have a duty to fans beyond not creating any additional risk than the inherent danger of the activity, especially given that Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has mandated that teams roll out expanded protective netting for the 2020 season.

"These cramped descriptions by the trial court and US Baseball fundamentally misperceive the nature of US Baseball's duty to fans attending the August 17, 2014 national team trials," wrote  Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss of the of the California Second District Court of Appeal, on behalf of Associate Justices John Segal and Gail Ruderman Feuer. "To be sure, foul balls are part of baseball. But as the entity responsible for operating Blair Field on that date, US Baseball had a duty not only to use due care not to increase the risks to spectators inherent in the game but also to take reasonable measures that would increase safety and minimize those risks without altering the nature of the game."

The court reversed US Baseball's demurrer and a post-judgement order requiring Summer to pay nearly $5,000 in costs and fees, and remanded the case to LA Superior with directions to grant the baseball fan leave to file her second amended complaint.

US Baseball's Los Angeles-based counsel Sevan Gobel of Andrews Lagasse Branch & Bell and Ladell Hulet Muhlestein of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Perluss ruled that an amended complaint incorporating the views of experienced baseball pros such as Manfred point to an enforceable duty, at least for pleading purposes.

"Whether the evidence will support those allegations, which will require an evaluation of the extent of the stadium's existing netting, the proximity of unprotected seats to the playing field and the history of previous injuries in the seating area at issue, is not now before us," he said.

Summer's attorneys—which include The Law Offices of Michels & Lew's Steven Stevens in Los Angeles; Thomas Dempsey of the Law Office of Thomas M. Dempsey in Beverly Hills; and Daniel E. Selarz of Selarz Law Corp.—did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.