Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green
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...
|
Thanks, Kelvin, that's along my thinking, but worded much better than I could have done it. I wanted to flesh that out a bit, thanks.