Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21
Which SHOULD fall squarely on the shoulders of the head coaches, and by extension the schools. NFHS themselves says, in print and in several places, that head coaches are responsible for ensuring that players are legally and properly equipped. That responsibility should extend into whatever legal concept EsqUmp can tell us about, where the adult assuming said responsibility at the plate meeting is in some way culpable for any harm resulting from a breach of it, and officials are released and held harmless.
But I'm an idealist and a die-hard believer in the weight of the printed word. Neither of these traits is worth a hill of beans defending ourselves as Random Joes in this litigious society...I know this. Sue me, I guess. No, wait: DON'T!
Your signature is as true and relevant as it was 8 or more years ago when you set it up. I am glad my off-hand comment generated so much good discussion about this topic.  |
HS is different from non-scholastic organizations. The coach is an employee of the school/district which carries the relatively same authority as a teacher when is comes to guardianship of the students. In many cases, the issue of coverage is self-contained within the system AFA insurance issues. However, even though a rule may be written placing the responsibility on the coach, I don't believe anyone is exempt from potential legal action. And while those should be dismissed, that person must still respond which can be problematic to some even though the umpire may have multiple levels of coverage from various sources.
It sounds ludicrous, but so did a finding that a bat company was liable for an injury because there wasn't a warning noting the danger present when using a metal bat.
Article
The State of New Jersey passed legislation that attempted to ban non-wood bats. Luckily, that movement died after about a week or so.