Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.
|
I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.
The reasonable person standard is a real standard, all right, but reasonable and customary practice in this instance is surely to enforce the rules. I don't see how you can consistently assert both
this and
this.