Something is not adding up

[His High Holiness]

All;

Today I was emailed and asked to check out a thread on McGriffs regarding officials being sued for injuries to players. I have read the whole thread (Fan - Logic behind rule). It's actually a subtopic in the thread and there are a number things that strike me as odd. I have started the thread here so that names can be attached to the posters and I can have some basis for evaluating the answers. Here are some facts and observations that I am mulling over. Please comment:

1. It's an intelligent thread that needs discussion and it started on McGriffs. That's very odd.
2. Many years ago when I subscribed to a rag called Referee, I was charged $39 per year for the rag and $30 per year for $1-2 million of liability insurance. I am going from memory here. I may be slightly off on the numbers.
3. $30 for $1-2 million of liability insurance indicates to me that almost no officials are getting sued. At least half of that has to go to marketing and overhead costs. Some has to go to profit. What's left to pay claims?
4. Has Referee's insurance company ever paid a claim under this policy? Is it even a legitimate company?
5. Are there so many loopholes in the policy that it is really worthless? What kind of insurance costs only $30 per year?
6. It's "common knowledge" that officials are the targets of lawsuits. Yet when challenged to provide proof of this over on McGriffs, nobody could. The quoted platitudes about our litigous society, but no one could name an actual case where an official was held liable.
7. I remember about 3 years ago when an attorney over on eteamz did a search looking for cases against officials regarding player injuries. The major one that he could find regarded Rugby and it was in the UK, not even here in the good old USA. I don't remember if he found any cases in the USA.
8. With all of the posters from all over the country at this forum, somebody somewhere should know someone in their association who has bee sued. Please tell us what happened.
9. For my own association, we have been threatened with legal action several times over the last 15 years but never over bodily injury to players, fans, or coaches. I am in a big rich (comparatively) association in the most litigous place in the country. If it isn't happening here, where is it happening?
10. Is the threat of lawsuits against officials for kids getting hurt another one of those baseball myths like "the hands are part of the bat?"

On McGriff's some of these questions have been raised but there are no answers. There is a lot of opinion (and flames) but precious little fact. Can anyone here shed real light on this issue?

Peter

[greymule]

At least one of our guys is being sued at present. A runner was halfway home when he supposedly remembered that an edge of the plate was sticking up slightly. So he tried to reverse direction and slipped, tearing up his knee. The ump is one of many entities targeted.

I heard a rumor that another member of our association lost a case, but I'm not sure about that. Legend has it that the clinching point at the trial was that he had not re-taken the ASA test after having taken it 20 years earlier. This is why everyone in our association has to turn in a signed test every year.

You're right: $30 can't buy much real insurance. If the policy excludes gross negligence and outrageous behavior, perhaps the insurers are aware that successful suits against officials are actually very rare.

Here in NJ, a jury just awarded a female high school basketball player almost $2 million because the coach yelled at her. I think another judge has reversed most of that award, however.

[jxt127]

I have read that while there are a number of lawsuits filed against officals, or at least naming an offical it is very rare that such a case will even make it to court.

The suit must still be responded to. So it would seem that the insurance is less to cover a trial and potential damage awards as it is to provide legal services in correctly responding. (Please forgive my, no doubt, incorrect legal terminology)

John T

[gsf23]

This is about the only thing I could find. Here is the website and I have posted the relevant parts.

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articl...portslaw_1_163

The past two decades have seen the emergence of two new areas of sports liability: lawsuits between participants in the sport and actions against officials administering the rules of the game. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued two important decisions in this area.

The first decision, Santopietro v. New Haven, involved an injury to a spectator. Court decisions involving spectators suing the players or the operators of a sports arena when they were struck by balls, pucks or other objects go back many years. In fact, there is a 1924 decision reported in a lawsuit against a Boston Red Sox pitcher whose errant throw to third base struck a spectator. The only thing special about that case was the pitcher: George Herman "Babe" Ruth. The Sox lost the game but won the lawsuit.

The Santopietro case was somewhat different. The lawsuit was brought against two umpires of a softball game, alleging that their failure to maintain control of the game and the players led to a thrown bat striking a spectator in the head, causing a skull fracture. The umpires prevailed at the trial, and the injured spectator appealed. In its review of the case, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed that umpires have a duty to enforce the rules, exercise reasonable judgment and maintain control of the game to prevent risk of injury to others, including spectators. In other words, if a game official fails to adequately enforce the rules, and that failure leads directly to injury of another person by a game participant, the official may be held liable.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by gsf23

The Santopietro case was somewhat different. The lawsuit was brought against two umpires of a softball game, alleging that their failure to maintain control of the game and the players led to a thrown bat striking a spectator in the head, causing a skull fracture. The umpires prevailed at the trial, and the injured spectator appealed. In its review of the case, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed that umpires have a duty to enforce the rules, exercise reasonable judgment and maintain control of the game to prevent risk of injury to others, including spectators. In other words, if a game official fails to adequately enforce the rules, and that failure leads directly to injury of another person by a game participant, the official may be held liable.

Some people are so stupid. Who would sue the official about anything, unless the official actually did something to hurt someone. How about instead of holding the umpire liable for some idiot player throwing a bat, how about you hold the player liable.

I mean just last week I was calling a game. And the batter popped out to end the inning. He was mad so he threw his bat at the backstop fence from about 25 feet away. So me being the good umpire that I am, I reconized that this was actually my fault for not calming down the batter after he was put out. So I promptly ejected myself from the game.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

At least someone got ejected.