Legal Acountability

[ManInBlue]

Whoever has done the research has done one or two things -

1. Not researched thoroughly
2. Not given a definition of significant (issues involving sports official compared to what)

Before I get pummelled, I don't know where or how the research was done. These are just my conclusions, thus far.

I've heard of several lawsuits involving umpires. I don't know the details, where you can find the paperwork etc. I'm just stating that it seems odd that I would have heard of 3 or 4 issues, but research has found none (or not a significant #). Could be that what I've heard is a bunch of BS. I'll admit that, too.

One thing I know for a fact is that if I were named in a lawsuit from working a USSSA game, I would not even know about it and neither would anyone else in the organization. The U-trip insurance/lawyers handle it and it doesn't trickle down. That may have something to do with the difficulty in finding data and/or takers on the "give me your story" request.

Just putting in my $.02 - that probably isn't worth $.02

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

There was a SP softball F1 that was hit in the face with a liner during a local beer league game a few years ago. He was also my mechanic and a good guy. He has lost partial eyesight due to his injury. He sued the bat manufacturer (Wilson I think) the ball manufacturer (Worth I think) as well as the town. I know he settled (less than 200k). He never named the umpires in his suit. The town was involved because the pitchers plate was 1.5 inches too close to home plate... and they built and maintain the fields. The same fields he played on for nearly 12 years.

He lost about 6 months work. I feel bad for the guy. But I feel that his and these types of suits are filed more out of opportunity than for necessity. IMO, that is sad.

I couldn't agree more. Neither Wilson nor Worth had anything to do with him getting hit or getting hurt.

[ctblu40]

I'm certainly not a good researcher, in fact, that is one reason I chose to major in math. But....


http://tinyurl.com/3xvxaa

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

I'm certainly not a good researcher, in fact, that is one reason I chose to major in math. But....


http://tinyurl.com/3xvxaa

Did you read this?
Quick run thru: 3 defense verdicts, 2 settlements, NO verdicts of liability [a settlement - BTW, I notice these settlements were NOT "confidential" - is not a judicial determination of liability: many settlements are economic decisions by insurance companies].

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Whoever has done the research has done one or two things -

1. Not researched thoroughly
2. Not given a definition of significant (issues involving sports official compared to what)

Before I get pummelled, I don't know where or how the research was done. These are just my conclusions, thus far.

I've heard of several lawsuits involving umpires. I don't know the details, where you can find the paperwork etc. I'm just stating that it seems odd that I would have heard of 3 or 4 issues, but research has found none (or not a significant #). Could be that what I've heard is a bunch of BS. I'll admit that, too.

One thing I know for a fact is that if I were named in a lawsuit from working a USSSA game, I would not even know about it and neither would anyone else in the organization. The U-trip insurance/lawyers handle it and it doesn't trickle down. That may have something to do with the difficulty in finding data and/or takers on the "give me your story" request.

Just putting in my $.02 - that probably isn't worth $.02

You are apparently missing the point:
We have ALL "heard of" any number of suits "involving" umpires: what we HAVEN'T heard of is liability judgments against those umpires for on-field, game-related injuries. Lightning injuries: yeah [I think 1]. Suits where officials were named, but where there were defense verdicts or dismissals in favor of the officials: absolute ****loads.

IF you have "heard of" a suit where the officials lost [not settled] for on-field, game-related injury, send me what info you know, & I'll check it out. O/w it falls in the category of urban legend.

AND, if you were a named defendant in a suit, you would damn sure know about it: a sherrif or other process server would deliver your own personal copy of the suit papers to you at home or work. THEN the U-trip Ins.Co. and lawyers would take over.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

IF you have "heard of" a suit where the officials lost [not settled] for on-field, game-related injury, send me what info you know, & I'll check it out. O/w it falls in the category of urban legend.

"lost," "settled" - I paid money to a plantiff --I f****ing lost, period. Other than legal jargon, I don't see the damn difference. And neither will my loan officer.

One case that comes to mind (and I don't know where it happened) to which I am willing to admit "urban legend" --

Two batters (on-deck) between innings, one takes a practice swing, not realizing where the other was standing, hit him. Parents sue umpires because they are responsible for safety on the field. If you can find info, please let me know what you find.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Frivolous law suits would drop precipitously if this country would adopt a loser pays all court cost.

BTW: The McDonald’s Hot Coffee lawsuit sounds frivolous on the surface. However, when you find out the facts of the case, it is not. That elder women received 3rd degree burns on her legs and required skin graphs. If you have any inkling as to what a third degree burn is, you would think different about that case. This is just one http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm of many web sites that report the facts surronding the McDonald's case.

And that's McD's fault??? The woman got $600,000 because she put coffee between her knees to remove the LID?? Are you freaking kidding me? This certainly was a frivolous law suit. (IMHO)

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

And that's McD's fault??? The woman got $600,000 because she put coffee between her knees to remove the LID?? Are you freaking kidding me? This certainly was a frivolous law suit. (IMHO)

The jury took this into consideration and found her to 20% at fault and reduced her award accordingly. McDonald, who admitted to knowlingy brewing coffee above at temperatures above the industry norm and at temperatures that they knew to be unsafe, was found to be 80% at fault.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Are you denying that there are confidentiality conditions placed on some settlements? I'm not saying that's the case, just tossing it out as a possibility.

Ummm, maybe I'm missing something but if the conditions and settlements were confidential - how would we know if they settled out of court.

We had a girl from here that was injured during a softball tournament in SC. She was pitching - NFHS - and the ball was illegal and the bat was illegal too. The ball hit her square in the face and completely shattered her jaw and chin - several reconstructions later - her parents chose not to pursue any legal matters against the tournament or the umpires. (Unless it was settled out of court - confidentially.) She's still playing college ball now, btw.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

And that's McD's fault??? The woman got $600,000 because she put coffee between her knees to remove the LID?? Are you freaking kidding me? This certainly was a frivolous law suit. (IMHO)

Here is another thing you need to realize. I jury can award whatever they think is appropriate. They person or persons suing might ask for to take care of their medical bills and other reasonable expenses as a result of their damage. Punitive damages are there to make an example out of the people or company responsible so it will discourage other similar behavior. A jury can award any number they feel in many cases unless there is a law or statue that prevents this. I guarantee you that McDs did not lose a lot of their money to that lawsuit. As a matter of fact McDs has prospered since then. And even if the women were at fault, no one expects to buy a product and expect to have a major medical procedure for a simple mistake. We are not talking about handling a firearm. We are talking about drinking a cup of coffee.

If there was not a threat of a lawsuit, there would be companies that would continue to hurt the public and not consider safety. And still we have companies that put harmful components to products (Led in toys from China as an example) and the threat of a lawsuit should be apart of equation when they are negligent.

Peace

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

One thing I know for a fact is that if I were named in a lawsuit from working a USSSA game, I would not even know about it and neither would anyone else in the organization.

Wanna bet?

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

And that's McD's fault??? The woman got $600,000 because she put coffee between her knees to remove the LID?? Are you freaking kidding me? This certainly was a frivolous law suit. (IMHO)

I'll write this again for those of you that are hard of reading. The women received third degree burns and required skin grafts. That's not a sunburn. That's not a blister. That's the complete destruction of tissue. All from a cup of coffee. She was in the hospital for eight days.

McDonald’s served the coffee at approximately 190 degrees. McDonald’s admitted coffee at that temperature is “unfit for human consumption”; 190 degree liquid causes third-degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds of contact with skin.

And you think that McDonald's is not liable for causing a permanent disfigurement plus pain and suffering?
Wow!

A frivolous law suit is a judge in DC suing a dry cleaner for $58M for losing his pants. A woman being burned by near boiling coffee from a company that knows it is wrong, is not.

(This really is all I have to say about that)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

I'll write this again for those of you that are hard of reading. [B]A frivolous law suit is a judge in DC suing a dry cleaner for $58M for losing his pants. A woman being burned by near boiling coffee from a company that knows it is wrong, is not.

(This really is all I have to say about that)

And that case was thrown out.

Peace

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that case was thrown out.

Peace

Yes it was. However, the defendent spent $84K defending the law suit. I believe they were going to settle out of court for $10K. He didn't take it and now is appealling the ruling. That dry cleaner is going to have to do alot of shirts to get back the $84K.

But I do believe in karma http://www.examiner.com/a-782166~Pan...0_000_job.html



ooops

[Paul L]

A defendant who prevails over a plaintiff in a lawsuit can sue that plaintiff for malicious prosecution. It's pretty tough to win. The new plaintiff (former defendant) must prove that the original lawsuit was totally without merit and frivolous.

But the pants suit guy apparently was basing his suit on the dry cleaner guaranteeing satisfaction, and when they lost his pants, he decided he wouldn't be satisfied unless they paid him some exorbitant amount of money. A reasonable jury could decide that was malicious prosecution and award the dry cleaner damages for their attorney fees and court costs, as well as punitive damages maybe. Then the dry cleaner would just be faced with enforcing that judgment, a process for which attorney fees are not available.

BTW, this is a matter for state law, which may vary from state to state.