Legal Acountability
 

I have always heard this statement when it came to 1) checking equipment prior to the game, 2) asking coaches about their players "wearing proper equipment" at the plate meeting, or 3) keeping players in the dugout or batting circle. I agree these matters and others like them are very important for everyone's "safety" and general well being.

The fear of losing money appears to provide the necessary motivation to perform menial tasks. Money surpasses safety and many other intrinsic social values. For example, should a kid get hurt, why would someone point the finger at the umpire? Do they point the finger at parents of the child, or the child responsible for the injury, or that child's coach? How can leagues or their umpires be held accountable in a court of law?

I put this under "game management", ---similar to doing certain things (warning, ect) that will reduce the chances of something exploding later in the game.

Checking equip prior wont eliminate potential lawsuits, lawyers suggest suing everyone in site to cover all the (money) bases, but it will reduce the chance an official will be found guilty of some charge....

Easily. Ignore the safety rules and have someone get hurt due to it.

Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society. Why is McDonalds responsible for someone putting a cup of coffee between their legs and getting burned when that coffee spills? Now that might be a bit more outrageous . . . but if you, as a game official, are required to inspect equipment prior to a game and a child gets injured - if you didn't do your job you will certainly be included in a lawsuit. The reason is simple - if you had done your job (i.e. tossed an illegal bat or helmet) that kid might not have been injured. The flip side . . . if you did your job, you'll probably still be named in the suit but the chances of being liable are much smaller.

One of our SP softball guys was named in a suit after a runner, in a co-ed game at a rather minimal field built for an apartment complex, slipped between 3B and home and tore up his knee. Does the suit claim the umpire should have called the game because of slippery grass? No. It claims that the runner, on the way home, remembered that the crummy, soft-rubber, flexible home plate had a slightly protruding edge, and not wanting to get hurt on this extremely dangerous home plate, tried to stop but couldn't. The claim of course is that the umpire should not have allowed the game to be played with the deadly home plate. The suit was in the courts for years, and I don't know that it has been resolved yet.

I was the PU in a SP game in which a batter, using a Miken Ultra (a bat with which Barney Fife could hit a softball 300 feet), lined a shot off the pitcher's foot and did some serious damage. That was in 2003, and I don't know whether that suit has been resolved, either. For some reason, I was not named in the suit.

Easy. By a jury of their peers.

You're confusing common sense, and rational thinking with our judicial system. Anyone can sue anyone, and get compensation from a jury decision. YMMV by each state, but in civil matters many states go with 12 folks selected at random. These are the folks that watch American Idol and elect our presidents.

Dave Hensley, I believe it was, a few years back did an exhaustive search nationally for any case in which the final outcome included a sporting official being held liable for an injury sustained during a sporting event.

Despite all the hand-wringing, dire-warnings and old umpire's tales, he could find none. In subsequent years, he has asked for anyone with knowledge of such a case to cite specifics of it so it could be substantiated. No takers.

In Spokane, two umpires and our association were initially named in a lawsuit filed for an injury sustained by an adult men's league participant when he was spiked by a sliding runner. The umpires and association were named because the suit alleged that the game was getting rough prior to the injury and the umpires could have and should have "brought it under control" earlier. Had they done so, the suit further alleged, the injury would not have occurred.

After two years of lawyers exchanging letters, the umpires and the association were dropped from the suit.

Not arguing either way but just pointing out that many cases of this type are settled out of court and conditions of confidentiality are included in the settlement.

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 grafts. 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 you know this to be true.....how?

Having both a personal [I umpire] and professional [I'm a trial lawyer during business hours] interest, I have made the same [ok - similar] search as Dave, and have made the same request: if anyone knows about a case where an umpire was ultimately held liable for on-field game-related injury, I'd like to know the details. No takers. The only cases I've ever heard of are a couple lightning-related suits.

The issue, however, is not ultimately liability. Simply being a defendant in such a suit for several months orf years can be quite expensive. Thus my advice to all sports officials:
1.) Do your job on safety issues; and
2.) Buy the insurance.

I know what 3rd degree burns are. I read the article in your link. I have yet to change my mind on how frivilous this lawsuit was.

The lawsuit changed how hot restaurants made their coffee and other drinks. It was a good lawsuit. People do not expect to spill a drink and have to have major medical procedures.

Having said that, who cares what the system does or does not do in lawsuit situation. The fact that anyone can file one and to defend yourself requires money and time that many people do not have, I would do whatever I could to avoid being sued. Or I would do everything I could to make sure I reduce me liability.

The one time you do not care or you do not do something, the kid who gets hurt parents are going to be lawyers and you will have to deal with a lawsuit. I will take my changes with asking a dumb question and checking something that takes a minute or two than spending months on a lawsuit to just have the case thrown out.

Peace

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.

The above [your question] IS NOT what you originally wrote and I responded to.

While it certainly is true that SOME settlements have confidentiality conditions; VERY, VERY FEW lawsuits are "confidential" from their inception: the allegations and parties are almost always matters of public record. Suits naming sports officials as defendants are relatively rare, and usually the subject of some public notice, esp. within the officiating community, at the time they are filed. My initial post in this thread [and the question you quoted, but have, one notices, still failed to answer] was intended to challenge the [IMO] completely unfounded assertion which I have quoted [again] in this post.

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.