|
I am apologizing for long post in advance.
Tim
What are you talking about legal reference? If you are talking about a case that has established some sort of legal precedence between officiating and jewelry you may be right. I did a quick search and could not find one with a direct link between officiating and jewelry. However you may be interested in the following.
There are numerous suits brought against officials. Some states have specifically immunized officials against suits. Others have not, Referees face lawsuits why else would officials associations provide liability coverage when we join. BTW if you dont have it, I suggest you get it!
I did do some quick research that was done by other than an official's association.
Sports Lawyers Journal
Spring, 1997
4 Sports Law. J. 213
ARTICLE: THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF SPORTS OFFICIALS: DON"T TAKE THE GAME INTO YOUR OWN HANDS, TAKE THEM TO COURT!
Exerpts....
Absent a statutory breach, under the common law, it is well established that individuals have affirmative duties to avoid intentional harm to others without justification. In the U.S. this type of intentional, but legal, conduct was addressed in Porter v. Crawford & Co...In applying this concept to the issue at hand, it is apparent that an official may be found to have committed an intentional tort if the plaintiff can establish that the official's deliberate conduct resulted in monetary harm. 15 However, this cause of action is limited because the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving that the official had theintent to cause injury on the part of the official. The ability to recover for harm resulting from intentional conduct is restricted by the legal requirements for imposing liability, and hence limits its application to instances of unmistakable misconduct. [*217]
Liability based on unintentional conduct is more common. It arises from breach of an official's affirmative duties. 16 These duties may arise from statute or contract. An official may have the duty to control participants, in addition to his or her duty to possess adequate knowledge of the rules and their application. Liability is predicated upon the breach of some duty which results in a negligence cause of action.
--------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious based on the above that if we as official's breach our duties, we are liable. It would not be hard for a plaintiff to prove that we have taken those tests we are oh so proud of to establish that we know what the rules are. It would not be hard to prove that we have refereed for years and know why the rules are in place, it would not be hard to show what are duty is and that we breached it by allowing some idiot to wear jewelry inappropraitely.
__________________________________________________ _______
Now I did find a couple of other cases...
Kennel v. Carson City School Dist., 738 F. Supp. 376
asserted that that the referees at the game were negligent in not protecting him, and that their negligence should be imputed to the school district. appeal record did not discuss outcome against referees
In Nabozny v. Barnhill, 31 Ill.App.3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258 (1975), a soccer goalie in a league for high-school-aged participants, was kicked in the head in the non-contact penalty area. The court concluded that "a player is liable for injury in a tort action if his conduct is such that it is either deliberate, wilful or with a reckless disregard for the safety of the other player so as to cause injury to that player."
The court in Nabozny expressed the view that sports are governed by two types of rules. One type aims to increase the quality of the game and theother type is designed primarily to protect participants from serious injury. The court determined that when a recognized set of rules governs the competition, every player is charged with a legal duty to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule. Thus, in setting forth the standard for liability, the court stated that "a player is . . . charged with a legal duty to every other player on the field to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule."
Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494
The court found that players of sports agreed to a certain level of contact and that an ordinary negligence standard was not appropriate. The court held that the standard imposed by the trial court, that parties had a duty to refrain from engaging in injury-causing conduct which was reckless or intentional was the proper standard
Carabba v. Anacortes Sch. Dist., 72 Wn.2d 939
Referee was sued as well as school district, appeal record does not show disposition of case against referee
Heck there is even an annotaltion in American Law Reports
Liability for Injury to or Death of a participant in Game or Contest ( 7 ALR 2d 204) Many of cases cited are not directly official's related but since the precedence exists against one its not hard to prove against another!
__________________________________________________ ________
I think it would be pretty easy to show that officials should be held to the same standards of players... or even a better standard. Nabronzy I think sets the standard for us as well as players. Now if you dont think this is enough I bet I could find say another 250 plus citiations where referees were sued.
It is not potential or threatened litigation. IT IS REAL. Common Law Tort Claims are easy to file, and based on what I see if there were anything close to gross negligence the referee loses. Bet a lot of get settled with insurance companies too...
You know what ignore the advice of the board and pay for a lawyer when it happens! Me I'll take the prudent road.
BTW the above is not represented to be legal advice in any way shape or form and is soley to be interpreted by the reader. The author is not an attorney and is not offering any legal opinions. Please contact your own attorney for any legal advice.
|