|
Tue Jul 27, 2004, 09:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doing a 16U tournament. One team shows up with an illegal catcher's helmet under FED rules (no ear flaps). Tourney director says that he can play because all teams signed a waiver. I protested enough that they eventually borrowed a legal mask from the other side. In any case, was this booger pickin' on my part, or can we, as umpires, be held liable for injuries occurring while we willfully allow a player to use illegal equipment? Would those waivers hold up in court or would it be better simply to refuse to work the game? It's really sad that I even have to ask this question, but with the number of ambulance chasing attorneys out there, this is a genuine concern.
(P.S.: I apologize to all of the ambulance chasers who may be observing this board.) 
|
|
Tue Jul 27, 2004, 09:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
As an "ambulance chaser" myself on the day job, I'll take a stab at this one:
1.) I'm presuming your 16U tourney is using FED rules. If so, yes, there is potential liability if you knowingly or negligently allow unsafe behavior/ equipment which is prohibited by the rules. If the tourney is not governed by FED rules, then your "standard of care" is the rules code you are operating under. If that standard is lower than FED [i.e.: ear flaps not required], there is no need for you to impose the "safer" code's standards. 2.) Depending on the jurisdiction involved, your actual risk may be limited or eliminated by legal doctrines such as contributory negligence or assumption of risk. Ask an attorney in your locality. Nevertheless, even the expense of sucessfully defending a suit can run to thousands of dollars. 3.) For games involving children, those "waivers" are probably not worth doodly: children cannot make binding contracts, and parents usually cannot waive the kids' personal injuries. If the rules in force prohibit certain unsafe equipment or conduct, ENFORCE THE RULE. If anyone asks you to look the other way, REFUSE. No TD or Protest Committee can "waive" a safety rule. 4.) Consider this a plug for NASO and/or ABUA membership, which provides specific insurance coverage for officiating liability. There has never been [so far as I can determine] a successful lawsuit against an umpire in my state, but I would not even consider "going bare" [without liability coverage] as an umpire. [Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 28th, 2004 at 01:42 AM]
|
|
Tue Jul 27, 2004, 10:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree, I carry liability insurance as well.
Could the ump be liable? Maybe, but the cost of defending yourself, even if not found liable, is not worth the risk. Why take the chance? DO NOT waive safety rules. cbfoulds is a practicing ambulance chaser. I went to law school, then gave up the profession for a real job.
|
|
Tue Jul 27, 2004, 10:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
CB:
In Dave Hensley's absence, allow me to ask: Can you cite two instances in the last, oh, let's say 40 years,in any state, in which umpires were found, by a court, to be negligent or in any way at fault and held financially responsible for an injury? Personally, I believe the scare tactics used on umpires regarding liability benefit only the insurance companies. We can even look at from their point of view. Once they've scared you into taking out a policy, how do they set the rates? Normally by either historical evidence or predicted future occurances. Since their rates are incredibly low for the dollar amount of "coverage", what does that tell us about their assumption that they'll ever have to pay out?
__________________
GB
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 12:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However, as I've indicated, the possibility/ probability of final liability to pay damages is not the only risk we face from lawsuits. Unfortunately (IMO) this country generally does not follow the "British Rule" (AKA "losers push") whereby if you are on the losing end of any lawsuit, you also pay the other fellow's attorney fees. As a result, you need insurance to pay the cost of sucessfully defending yourself from even a baseless claim. You are absolutely correct, the rates charged reflect, in part, the ins. co.s' well-researched assessment of the chances they will have to pay out anything, including defense costs. The (rel. low) prices also reflect the fact that NASO and ABUA ins. is "excess" coverage, which means that they pay only after/ in the absence of other liability coverage you may carry. No way will you get ME to defend ins. co. practices or pricing. All that said, I carry and recomend that others carry such specialised ins. I also carry "umbrella" ins. which provides add'l. coverage over and above my prof. liability, homeowner's, and auto ins.~ Why? 'Cause my wife sleeps better knowing that we won't take a huge $ hit if some doofus sues me for big bucks because Jr's pro career got short-circuited when I ejected his foul-mouth'd 12 year old backside from the district LL final. It costs me, like, 1 summer-league game fee, right? Now, finally, leave ins. out ~if you don't want (or think you need) it, don't buy it~ issues of liability can only be "scare tactics" so long as you do nothing to incur obvious liability. FAILURE TO ENFORCE SAFETY RULES is clear, obvious negligence. I like to think the reason why there have been (so far as I can tell) no successful suits against an umpire in living memory is that none of my brother and sister Blues was stupid enough not to enforce the safety rules in the face of clear, known violations. Which was the point of the original inquiry and my main response. [Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 28th, 2004 at 01:44 AM]
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 07:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If I may speak for Hensley:
I don't think his point is that the umpire is liable or not. He often argues against those that say that insurance won't cover them if they do something negligent. That is EXACTLY what the insurance is for: to cover your acts, even if negigent. To use the often quoted example, say you get loaded at a bar one night, then drive home, getting into an accident on the way. The accident was your fault, and the intoxication played a major role. Are you negligent? Absolutely. But is your insurance company going to pay? Absolutely, that's why you have the insurance. Are they going to drop you like a hot potato given their next opportunity? You bet, but in the mean time, they pay for this one. I'm with cb 100% on this one. My umpire's liability, combined with my umbrella liability policy will cover me if I get sued. Whether I'm ACTUALLY liable or not isn't the issue. There are FAR too many lawyers out there that are willing to take the parent's case and make my life hell. To me, it's not worth the risk. If you can sleep with the risk factor or have nothing to lose, then don't pay the insurance premiums. But not me.
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 07:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is umpire basics 101. No one has the authority to override safety regulations in youth or amateur sports. No TD has the right, no association has the right, and no coach has the right. It is the umpires responsibility to see that each game is played by the rules and in a safe environment. Can the umpire be held liable, Im sure in this age of cut throat, sleazy, money hungry attorneys (no respect intended) the legal system will find a way to make the umpire take the brunt of the blame. After all, he is the last wall of defense in safety issues. He is the last person who can legally not start the game if safety rules are not followed. If he walks away and the teams still play without him, it is not his responsibility.
Major League Sports may have different ideas but then they are putting butts in seats and the players are making millions of dollars. At the youth and amateur level, the players have lives in front of them or jobs to go outside the sports complexes. "Mr. TD or coach, are you instructing me to overlook a safety rule? Then enjoy your game, I'll be on my way."
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 07:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally posted by GarthB
In Dave Hensley's absence, allow me to ask: Can you cite two instances in the last, oh, let's say 40 years,in any state, in which umpires were found, by a court, to be negligent or in any way at fault and held financially responsible for an injury? Garth, do not have proof, but as in many a lawsuit, they are settled out of court, hence no record of what took place. I look at this way, you could be a very healthy person all your life, but there's that one time you need health insurance, and it's well worth it. I'm not talking about being a nit-pick umpire either, but if it's gross negligence, why take the risk. The rule clearly states Double ear-Flaps. If one team has it, why not the other. Let's take an extreme case. You allow a batter to hit with NO helmet and something happens. IMO you WILL be LIABLE. So why risk it. We can even look at from their point of view. Once they've scared you into taking out a policy, how do they set the rates? Normally by either historical evidence or predicted future occurances. Since their rates are incredibly low for the dollar amount of "coverage", what does that tell us about their assumption that they'll ever have to pay out? Garth I think you are missing the point on this one. Yes, the rates are determined through historical trends, but they are also based on the numbers. Let's take NASO for example. The rates are relatively low because there are thousands of umpires enrolled in the program. The more individuals you have enrolled in a program the lower the rates. It's like ordering Shirts in an umpire organization. If you order by yourself, you will pay more, however, if you order through the organization it's cheaper because they order in bulk. In Summary, just because it hasn't happened in 40 or so years doesn't mean it can't. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 08:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nah,
Nope, Garth understands what this all about. He understands EXACTLY what it is all about. I love it when people try to "educate" others.
Some of us just feel that this entire issue IS a scare tactic and think the entire discussion is pretty funny. See, I did this entire post with out using the term "blood sucking maggots" one time . . . I am getting better. Tee
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 08:39am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Nah,
Quote:
So, when I umpire those games, they keep their helmets on or they get ejected. I haven't had to eject anyone, yet. And one player took a nasty blow to the back of the head after getting picked off first. Slid into second feet first and the wild throw hit in the back of the head at the bottom of the helmet. I'd hate to think the result if he had no helmet on. If someone dies due to making a choice like this, you can bet his family/widow would be suing the league and the umpires. Why even consider having to deal with that? --Rich
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 09:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one can fault you for being "picky" about safety rules, but they can if you allow unsafe conditions to persist.
I was doing a senior league (35+) game earlier this summer when the catcher came out in a mask - but no freakin' helmet. Well, that was an easy one - you ain't catching until you get a lid, I don't care how old or 'responsible for your own actions' you are - not on my field. We also arrived several years ago at a middle school field where a small portion of the plate was missing, exposing a very sharp edge. The principal at the school said we should play the game, but we refused citing the possiblity of injury should a 13 yo kid slide into home (the sharp edge was sticking up and out toward third base). We did play, but 4 miles away at the high school field. Very simply, in closing, at the pregame meeting, if you ask "Coaches, are all your players legally and properly equipped?", and they say "Yes", you can CYA to a certain extent. Obviously though, if you see something unsafe, don't just look the other way. Take care of it.
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 10:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
GB
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 10:12am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Catcher - (turning to look at the plate ump) [loudly] "Where was that pitch at?"
Plate Ump - (while sweeping the plate) "Didn't your English teacher ever teach you not to end a sentence with a preposition?" OK, where was that pitch at, a$$h***?
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2004, 01:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay...okay, I'm not disagreeing with you, but...
The climate may be changing boys and girls. Unless my eyesight deceived me, a court in Great Britain found a rugby official liable for an injury that occurred during one of his contests. I can't recall all of the details, but it ran in the Chicago Sun Times. Now I realize that our courts have not rendered a guilty verdict at an official, so far. Plenty have settled out of court, no doubt. I do not ascribe to the NASO mentality, but do not wantonly disregard safety rules either. The situation cited does beg for trouble and I would not want to be the one that serves as a precendent setter. My thoughts...insurance companies love getting your money and hate paying it out. From what I learned, most policies available to officials serve only as supplemental liability and you need to exhaust any other options before they pay. Do your job and make the tough calls. If the safety rule is being cited, adhere to it. (If the teams have to share a mask, so what?) As we have heard, the courts will have to prove you exhibited wanton disregard and failed to execute your duties. Isn't it just easier to remove an illegal bat, helmet or mask? We're going to get yelled at one way or another, let's start early.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
