spectator area that she was in between my client and the playing field was a retaining wall that was approximately four feet at some point during today's football player jumped into the air to catch a football and waited way ended and fell over the retaining wall and landed on my client and causing her to sustain injuries suit was filed on behalf of my client against the presented in here firmly defenses at this point to suggest that my client was contributing horribly negligent or that she's a risk or that she should have known that there was likely to be contact between the players and between my client the defendants filed the motion to dismiss ace solely upon the contact sports exception and that contact sports exception is the song basis of the t exception simply does not apply or does not bar liability in this case for two separate and distinct reasons number one my client was not a player she was merely a exception then what would have to be worked out is is whether or not this sport is a contact sport in the sense that there are many contacts between players and spectators under ordinary circumstances we have never disputed that arena or indoor football or any type of football is indeed a contact sport but it's only a contact sport in the sense of contact between players  there are no facts in evidence at this point suggest that it's contact between players and spectators as it were in your report of the game indoor football there are certainly been allegations to that effect made a defendant's motion to dismiss but those allegations are based upon any affidavits they are not based on any threats to money or any effort evidence of any so any suggestion that there is ordinarily this exception does not apply in this case because it is not predicated upon the misconduct or negligence of any of the players although the only cases they deal with this issue of contact sports exception is the field of play or there's anything wrong with the way that the players or the game was managed we are simply alleging that there was negligence with respect to where the spectators were designated by the defendants sit in relation to the playfield and that there were not adequate protections in place to protect spectators from basically what was going on on that there may or may not be affirmative defenses available to the defendants such as assumption of the risk or contributory negligence or that the person who's injured should have known that they might  be contacted by baseball and that sort of thing but but but that's not the type of issue that's before the court that i would assert that would absolutely not be a situation where the time after sports exception would come into play contact sports really  failing at the same time appreciate that those defenses might be raised as an affirmative defenses it would be the obligation of the defendants to heed those defenses and root them and that hasn't been done case the trial court's ruling should be affirmed because the circumstances alleged in the complaint meet the three factors laid out by the illinois supreme court in paris which determined that plaintiffs was of action against organizational defendant was barred by the policies and the illinois supreme court laid out three factors to determine whether an organizational defendant can buy another individual's cause negligence cause of action in these three factors there is no mention that it must be predicated on player negligence instead of looks at the inherent breasts involved game theory relationship between the parties and extending negligence to the cause of negligence two on the part of the organizational defendants in this raised the fact that we are able to play derive issue of affirmative defenses assumption of the risk or contributory negligence well the cuts exports acception implicitly takes those considerations into account and the reasoning behind the context for exception is an implicit consent by a participant or the person bringing the action that there may be possible contact to use the nature and the context of the sport l balls or pats fine there is a baseball act in illinois that we have heard by statute govern those issues however in baseball if there are issues i have players right into each other such as in the super case from the player may occur in an area close to the field where a player jumping for the ball happened to go and go into the front row so the question becomes whether that contact and being that near the field is an inherent part of the sport of indoor football or any type of  aisle i think what's important here is to look at the fact that while playing of the seeking to do is to say that you can bring in negligent action against someone perceiving individuals in an area close to the field and whether or not that would cause physical contact you have to be careful that the negligence doesn't open up the door for her organizational defense that they'll have to make sure the negligence action could have organizational defendants make sure that no physical contact could ever behavior between the players because that way you know i don't like i don't like this actually saying that the player you know contacting me in some way so i think by buying negligence if you're looking at this case with its report we have an organizational defendant here you have asked spectator it's whether there is an inherent rest during the game as noted by the california case and for  that physical contact does occur during a game between a spectator and a player who's going out of bounds or going for the ball or whatnot and i also believe in paris they cited california case com which actually had to do with i wasn't your traditional contacts or if it was diving or something in that regard and they looked at that to expand it to organizational  so when you look at the inherent and herrick nature indoor football looking at their fourth and i've looked at spectator injuries and it's apparent that  contact has occurred between a player and a spectator this time here in the context works exception when someone pushes the ticket chooses to sit near or in the front row they want to be close to the action it's an implicit hafe used the example of the ultimate contact sport of boxing boxing as an example of something that's really a contact sport and yet it's not a sport where the there is an inherent risk for any substantial risk necessarily of contact between the participants and the spectators so simply because something is a contact sport does not mean that there is a risk or characteristic contact that players expect