Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
CB:
In Dave Hensley's absence, allow me to ask: Can you cite two instances in the last, oh, let's say 40 years,in any state, in which umpires were found, by a court, to be negligent or in any way at fault and held financially responsible for an injury?
Personally, I believe the scare tactics used on umpires regarding liability benefit only the insurance companies.
We can even look at from their point of view. Once they've scared you into taking out a policy, how do they set the rates? Normally by either historical evidence or predicted future occurances. Since their rates are incredibly low for the dollar amount of "coverage", what does that tell us about their assumption that they'll ever have to pay out?
|
I couldn't possibly say for "any state", but I
have checked it out for my state (Va.), and the answer is in my original response.
However, as I've indicated, the possibility/ probability of final liability to pay damages is not the only risk we face from lawsuits. Unfortunately (IMO) this country generally does not follow the "British Rule" (AKA "losers push") whereby if you are on the losing end of any lawsuit, you also pay the other fellow's attorney fees. As a result, you need insurance to pay the cost of sucessfully defending yourself from even a baseless claim.
You are absolutely correct, the rates charged reflect, in part, the ins. co.s' well-researched assessment of the chances they will have to pay out anything,
including defense costs. The (rel. low) prices also reflect the fact that NASO and ABUA ins. is "excess" coverage, which means that they pay only after/ in the absence of other liability coverage you may carry.
No way will you get ME to defend ins. co. practices or pricing.
All that said, I carry and recomend that others carry such specialised ins. I also carry "umbrella" ins. which provides add'l. coverage over and above my prof. liability, homeowner's, and auto ins.~
Why? 'Cause my wife sleeps better knowing that we won't take a huge $ hit if some doofus sues me for big bucks because Jr's pro career got short-circuited when I ejected his foul-mouth'd 12 year old backside from the district LL final.
It costs me, like, 1 summer-league game fee, right?
Now, finally, leave ins. out ~if you don't want (or think you need) it, don't buy it~ issues of liability can only
be "scare tactics" so long as you do nothing to incur obvious liability.
FAILURE TO ENFORCE SAFETY RULES is clear, obvious negligence. I like to think the reason why there have been (so far as I can tell) no successful suits against an umpire in living memory is that none of my brother and sister Blues was stupid enough not to enforce the safety rules in the face of clear, known violations.
Which was the point of the original inquiry and my main response.
[Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 28th, 2004 at 01:44 AM]