(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Atlanta Nat. League Baseball Club v. F. F., 328 Ga. App. 217, 220-221 (761 SE2d 613) (2014). Furthermore, the trial court’s declaratory judgment regarding the validity and enforceability of documents at issue was based on its erroneous finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to Slosberg’s claim of undue influence.
On appeal from the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court of Idaho held that the Baseball Rule does not apply in Idaho, and that primary assumption of the risk is not a valid defense. Id. at 170, 173 ("[N]o compelling public policy rationale exists for us to . . . adopt the Baseball Rule."); see also Atlanta Nat. League Baseball Club, Inc. v. F.F., 328 Ga. App. 217, 219, (2014) (declining to adopt Baseball Rule where six-year-old girl suffered a skull fracture and brain injuries after being hit with a foul ball). Thus, it is conceivable that, under the right set of circumstances, a plaintiff could obtain the type of relief that plaintiffs seek here.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Atlanta Nat. League Baseball Club, Inc. v. F.F. , 328 Ga.App. 217, 220-221, 761 S.E.2d 613 (2014). Furthermore, the trial court's declaratory judgment regarding the validity and enforceability of documents at issue was based on its erroneous finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to Slosberg's claim of undue influence.