|
running clocks and time outs dont really deal with safety or the duty of care that we all have...the litigation would need to prove that it deviated from recognized standards. A league could "waive a safety rule" and all it would do is create liability for the league and its officers because recognized standards exist..
I also believe that the courts would wonder why a league would waive a safety rule. in many negligence cases, courts deal with forseeability. if it is forseeable that there would be an injury there may be a cause of action. Allowing jewelry and resultant injury would be forseeable if allowed. (there can be a whole discussion on zone of danger/forrseeable plaintiffs/ etc)
if a league told me they were waivng a safety rule like that I'd walk away because the court would still apply a reasonable referee standard to the case...I could just see the dialogue...
how does any one explain if a person got hurt because of jewelry that it was reasonable or prudent to allow them to play in a game where bodies get tangled, where arms are swung, hands hit, bodies go the floor?
all the plaintiff has to do is convince a judge or jury that allowing the jewelry was not reasonable... if it is obvious to them you lose...and so does the league that said it was ok...
|