Our analysis of a statute does not include speculation about the timing of an enactment. Plaintiff argues that the Act singles out baseball for special treatment by forcing a plaintiff to establish a greater degree of fault while other sports venue owners remain liable for ordinary negligence. Plaintiff contends that there is nothing so unique about baseball that its spectators should be treated differently than spectators of other sports. We believe the sport of baseball does have unique characteristics that would reasonably prompt a legislature to enact limited liability legislation. The inherent danger of a sport may be reason enough to prompt the legislature to enact a limited liability statute.
Foul balls travelling at high speeds are common at baseball games.
The speed and frequency of foul balls distinguish baseball from most other spectator sports. In this respect, basketball and football spectators, for example, are not similarly situated. Plaintiff notes that errant balls are also a danger to golf spectators, but owners of golf courses are not treated similarly to owners of baseball parks. See Duffy v. 92 Ill. App.