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.

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

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

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].

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.

"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.

And that's McD's fault???:confused: 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.

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.

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

Wanna bet?

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)

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

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.

Laws come about b/c state courts uphold them. State courts crewate trial history or case law. Every state is chock full of cases where negligence has been found and umpires have been held responsible. Our org has complete coverage including legal expenses to defend us (thanks IU!). Even though it comes out of the pocket of our org owner.

The court ruled the coffee was served at a scalding temp, approximately 140 degrees or more. Apples and oranges.

Garthie, tell him to call me, I know of at least two and I bet I can find several more.

skin grafts
just wanted to put that out there

YOU may not see the difference, but there is one.

A settlement is, usually, an economic decision made by an insurance company - the cost of trying the case [factoring in that MAYBE you lose] is greater than the cost of settlement. A verdict or judgment is a judicial determination that [in the circumstances being discussed here] someone [an umpire] failed to exercise "due care" where (s)he had a legal duty to do so.

Your one case, since we have no idea when, where, or to whom it happened, obviously cannot be checked out; however, I am aware of one such case with similar facts from about 5 to 7 years ago: there was no finding of liability [or settlement for that matter] against the umpires [in the case I have heard of] - the plaintiff was found to be contributorily negligent in a state where [unlike the infamous McD's coffee case] contributory negligence is an absolute bar to recovery. In such places [I live in one] the McD's plaintiff would get nothing, as she was found to be 20% negligent.

[/QUOTE]

Let's take a simple example: Here in NY we have a HS Lightening rule that says we have to wait 30 minutes once we see lightening (anywhere). Every time we see lightening the 30 minutes starts over.

The coach comes up to you after 15 minutes and says "Common Blue" the lightening is "way over yonder" not even close to us - let's get going I already have 2 make-up games this week alone.

You re-start the game (after waiting only 15 minutes) and GOD forbid a kid is struck by lightening and gets seriously injured.

I am not an attorney or a judge, but if the case did go to trial, you bet the attorney for the plaintiff is going to go over the Rule-book with a "fine" tooth comb and you will be "griiled" on the witness stand.

Now as to why there isn't "evidence" of many lawsuits involving officials is probably because most cases have either been settled or are still years away "on the docket" hence there is no public record. Unless you personally know of the lawsuit it's very difficult to find out exactly how many officials are involved with lawsuits.

IMO, it's Gross Negligence that can get you in trouble. Also, in the scheme of things it takes all of maybe 5 minutes to check the equipment and about 15 seconds to ask the coaches "Teams properly equipped"

Pete Booth

I agree - it's not worth taking the risk and possibly losing my house. God forbid a child gets injured . . . but I want to do everything possible to protect my liability if the unthinkable happens.

[QUOTE]Hi Garth

Off topic but speaking of Dave Hensely do you know why he has been absent from the discussion Forums?

This is a first for a few things this year meaning

1. No 2007 BRD and
2. This is the first time that Dave didn't post his infamous LL Tournament "cheat sheet"

Hope Dave is OK and it's just a matter that he is busy with family / work

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]The last I heard, due to work and related travel, Dave took the year off.

I was going to do it myself, but didn't want to be accused of being the grammar police again.:rolleyes:

Buy liability insurance from NASO or ABUA or your local association (if they offer it) or wherever.

No worries. See your post in Sportsmanship thread.:D

Personal responsibility
Common Sense

Just wanted to put that out there

Of course there is. It is common knowledge that I expect to have 3rd degree burns for spilling a beverage on my hands or in my lap.

I just wanted to put that out there. ;)

Peace

Ok,
 

"I know of at least two and I bet I can find several more."

Fit, you could really help out the group if you would list a url or a link to these situations.

Those of us that work on a national level would love to see rulings that slip through our research.

Our criteria that we review is:

A sports contest official must be involved,

The case must find the official at fault,

There must be a legal decision rendered.

We know of several where officials have been named in the orginal documents (Wichita State college baseball) but what we are looking for is a contest official actually winding up being on the losing end of a ddecision.

I admit freely that there have been some rulings that have "nearly" placed officials in jeopardy (example: A slow pitch plate umpire was found negligent because he did not offer HIS mask to a catcher who was not wearing one . . . when the catcher was injured the PU "should have" offered his mask for the catcher to use -- that is what the final determination of the court decided). This case was actually appealed and an out-of-court settlement was reached.

I also believe there have been a couple of lightning related cases.

Message Boards can be usefull and this is one of those times.

Regards,

Tee this is the best I could come up with.

http://www.naso.org/rprt3.htm

If the discussion can be confined to "officiating" lawsuits, this thread can remain open. No more on the merits (or lack thereof) of the McDonald's suit, tobacco, guns, general injury, ...

Please provide a link to at least one of these cases where an umpire was found negligent and held responsible. You don't even have to prove the ridiculous claim that each state is "chock full" of such cases.


Tim.

Tim:
 

Please refer to Pete Booth's link.

Those are the only two sport contest officials legal proceedings that have been entered in the National data base.

Note that in neither was the official(s) included in the final outcome.

If "Fit" does have some examples I really do need access to them since I am on a National Committee dealing with these specific issues.

Regards,

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]Hi Pete - I'm alive and kicking, just, as Garth noted, buried with work in the real world. Haven't umpired this year and although I still participate on a couple of mail lists, I've not had much time lately for the Internet boards.

I'm hoping that's not permanent, but the job still has me running full speed just to stay even.

Thanks for thinking of me.

Dave

It's good to hear from you again on OF, Dave.


Tim.

Your Verdict?
 

I would like to throw this out there. I hope it meets the criteria for this thread. I don't see much of a difference between this type of accident and a lightning strike injury.

LL softball, R3, F2 retrieves pitch bouncing back from backstop which stops R3 in her tracks. Batter decided it was time to take a step out of batter's box and take a practice swing. The girls like to slap the back of their shoulder with the bat for some odd reason. Happens to whack the catcher in the face, knocks her to the ground and sends the poor girl to the hospital.

Well that is what happened. Tears were flowing on both sides. The girl was ok, maybe a broken jaw and the concussion. I don't know if there was a lawsuit over the medical bills {probably not}. I did wonder if the umpire near home plate could have been held liable for not clearing the batter away from possible action near home plate. That could happen to anyone at the LL level.

Only if the losers have sumpin' you can get from them to pay the court costs (which I assume you mean legal too).

Note that gross negligence is not exempted in any state as are several other delimiters of liability. Gross is not as "gross" a term as you might expect when legally defined.

Email me.

Your access should come from legal who can filter all cases at each level of jurisdiction, how those cases were or were not decided, etc. Google is a very poor example for this search, ask for Lexis/Nexis access from your counsel.

This is copyrighted material and (deleted), Lexis/Nexis is copyrighted nonetheless.

There is a current lawsuit underway in Texas from an incident in football 2 years ago where an official (linesman) collided with and hurt a coach who was ON THE FIELD. The entire crew is still dealing with the suit. I don't know huge details, but I do know that "sideline maintenance" is now a point of emphasis in the entire state.

Ok,
 

Fit,

We have two attorneys on the committee.

For the record, following my criteria as listed above there is still no listing of any contest official having been found at fault and been successfully sued.

That is still no reason not to purchase insurance that is available to all officials. You don't want to be the first.

Regards,

A few years ago, a pair of umpires allowed the players to continue playing into the sixth inning just for fun, even though the game should have been a mercy rule after the fifth. Somebody got hurt, and the umpires got sued. So yes these types of things do happen on the ball diamond. People do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. I think in this case the parents of the kid that got hurt should be sueing themselves for not pulling him off the field. That would make more sense than sueing the umpires. Of course everyone likes to put their blame on the umpires.

This is where the umpires made their mistake. Never, ever, EVER work a game past its actual completion. When the game is over, drop the balls or give them to somebody and then split!

You are liable for anything that happens if you stay and umpire some more. Tell the teams that they are welcome to keep playing until they have to give up the field, but that you are prohibited from continuing due to liability reasons. I always let them know that it is my association's policy and that stops their whiny protests of "come on, it's for the kids," or "what's your hurry, Blue...got a date?" and crap like that.

Once it's a complete game the teams are welcome to stay and "scrimmage." They just have to umpire their own game.

Again, this is the umpires' fault for trying to be "nice guys" and doing it "for the kids." The parents were right to sue, as the umpires should not have been there overseeing a game that was already completed.

Same thing goes if you get a forfeit because a team is short of players to start a game. The teams can get together and play, but the umpires have to leave as soon as a forfeit is declared.

In order to take this out of urban legend status, it would be necessary to know at least some of the "who, where, when..." You know any of this info, or is this just something "everybody has heard"?

Secondly, is this another "anybody can sue anybody for anything..." sitch; or was there an actual judgment against the umps?

See, while there is a reason NOT to continue past the end of the actual game, the reason is NOT merely continuing the game producing liability where none existed before [iow: you may be liable if you screw up apart from umpiring the "scrimage", but if you weren't liable in the first place, the "scrimage" factor doesn't make you liable]. If the kid got hurt and there was no umpire negligence... continuing the game ISN'T itself negligent.

In case you are wondering, the reason you should be very reluctant to do these "favors" "for the kids" is that most leagues' insurance won't cover you for any negligence that DOES happen, and it's a maybe at best for the NFHS, ABUA, or whoever's insurance ... most officiating insurance covers you for "games".

Civil law has an importeant functions and many important abuses. Along with authority comes exposure. There a few immunities but have it any other way, not a chance.

Lets suppose there never ever has been a succesful lawsuit. Are you willing to support the argument that since it is a legend that the consequences cannot be severe? That its a frivolous act to take every precaution that you are not the first? :eek:

My applause, so few do. Serious congrats.
Have your legal beagles do a thourough search of cases at the state, circuit and lower court levels. They will find the cases most of which have been settled, a few lost, many lost then overturned. There have been many "firsts".
Have them call your insurors and have them point to the cases, they sure as hell know and if they cannot, ask them why your rates are so high for a nonexistent liability.

It's not the damages awarded that will sink you, it is the cost of defending yourself, your org, your assets and your reputation (future income).

Since I'm pretty sure you've read what I wrote previously in this thread, you know I am not making your first argument.

To reiterate: buy the insurance!

As for the second: kinda depends upon what you actually mean by "every precaution", don't it?

My first "applies to all cases" piece of advice [also in previous posts, above]: DO YOUR JOB RE: SAFETY RULES.

The point of my comments about the "legend" staus of many of these "reports" [including, by the way, yours] is this: it is possible to get one's shorts in such a wad about avoiding any possible source of liability that it seems the only rational response is to retreat inside, lock the doors and never come out. It is silly to get all that worked up by a liability where there are, by every reasonable measure, NO INSTANCES where there has ever been a final judgment imposing liability for negligence on an umpire for game-related injury. [So we're clear: lightning a different story, ditto INTENTIONAL misconduct, such as assault] Does that mean you can't be/ won't be sued by some dolt for calling Johnny out ["when he was CLEARLY safe"] in the final inning of the Big Game and thereby ruining his future and costing him and his parents millions in deeply felt emotional distress? [or something equally silly] Noooo... but that's not the point, is it? You may get sued, but they won't win. So: DO YOUR JOB, and BUY THE INSURANCE; and you can umpire your games with "the calm assurance of a christian holding four aces."

fit... I've DONE the "search" you have repeatedly suggested would disclose "many" of these judgments ... I know of at least two insurance companies that have researched the industry databases looking for such suits ... the results are always the same: nothing to report.

That's why those of us interrested in this issue [me, Tee, Hensley, others] keep asking; IF YOU KNOW ABOUT ONE OF THESE: TELL US THE DETAILS so we can go look it up. Pretending you know someting we don't and all that is neccesary is to "go look it up": without providing a single party's name, not one Court or case citation, not even a locality and date is just bogus.

If you know: tell... o/w you clearly don't know, except what "everybody knows".. which is what makes "urban legends".

cb
 

Our two legal counsel ran the same reports that fitump56 suggested and there simply are no judgements to be found.

Nada.

Nil.

I have waited for fitump56 to quote one and he has evaded the issue.

I too suggest that all officials buy the insurance that is available.

I too suggest that every official be aware of hazzards associated with their games.

I too teach to err on the "safety" side.

~SIGH~

I deal with officiating legal issues nationwide. And we have never found an official to be held responsible in a legal decision.

That is all that I am trying to say.

Yours' is a great post.

Regards,

Simply put... this is a fantastic post. On point, never resorting to name calling, and a good way to summarize this thread!
Nicely done cb.

Several years ago in NJ a CF was struck by the FIRST bolt of lightning. The case did go to trial, and one of our association members had to go down there from CT and be an expert witness.

The poor kid was dead by the time anyone got to him. The parents clearly needed somebody to blame. I think this is just human nature, everyone needs a scapegoat.

I'm not sure of the outcome of the trial (perhaps settlement).

Stuff does happen and we COULD be in a heap of trouble, but all-in all, I think most sueing stories are just rumors.

Still, I don't think it hurts to ask if a team is properly equipped, even though nobody has been sued for not doing it.

Frankly, being sued, even for something stupid, is not an ordeal I wish to go through, so I'll take a couple of precautions on the field that don't effect how I do my job, as an umpire.

Originally Posted by fitump56
Lets suppose there never ever has been a succesful lawsuit. Are you willing to support the argument that since it is a legend that the consequences cannot be severe? That its a frivolous act to take every precaution that you are not the first? :eek:

This would fit my definition of being non-frivolous.

Wrong, cited in this thread are instances.

Truly naive advice, truly naive.

So have we, you need a new search engine or a new searcher.

Then if you believe my claims are bogus, what worries have you? Go along your merry way and hang your house on your naive advce and stance on this subject noted above.

Asked and answered within this thread.

Which leads back to the premise,

Lets suppose there never ever has been a succesful lawsuit. Are you willing to support the argument that since it is a legend that the consequences cannot be severe? :eek:

For you see, or don't, it makes relatively little diff if I or you are right or wrong. Good biz practices prepares for ALL possibilities and beiong sued as an ump or ump org is absolutely, positively the kind of thing that can create ultimate havoc and the dissolution of your earning potential and the orgs very existence. Nothing else can but this kind of legal action.

fit: I've been trying, as has Tee, to take you seriously in this thread.

While I suspected it would be a waste of time: still, I tried.

"There have been instances cited in this thread": false statement. The cases actually cited [as in: described with sufficient information to determine if the relator is telling the truth or merely repeating a "legend"] do not include a singel instance where the umpire has been found negligent in a final judgment for game-related injury. I know you can read, so your repeating this false statement is not merely error, it is a lie.

"Naive advice" is a matter of opinion; the value of the opinion having a great deal to do with the value of the opiner, or at least the extent to which that person is well-informed and well-intentioned, and their reputation for well-reasoned opinion. I'm not real worried about the outcome if anyone compares the two of us on either score.

For anyone who still gives a damn about the actual topic here: Do your job; err if you must, on the side of safety [just don't invent rules to do so]; buy the blinking insurance; and until they can cite some actual, verifiable, case, not just legends of what they "know", but won't tell - ignore the chicken-littles, both on the Boards and out in the world - who want to make you think that there are lawsuits under every base, waiting to leap out and bite you. At best, they are mistaken: at worst, they are lying blowhards.

Amen.

Hire new counsel.


Pantalope vs Lenap, '76 PA

and

"Amateur referees at softball diamonds, high school stadiums, and college field houses are finding that their decisions can trigger major-league lawsuits. * * * A New Jersey umpire was sued by a catcher who was hit in the eye by a softball while playing without a mask; he complained that the umpire should have lent him his. The catcher walked away with $24,000"

As I said, I have hundreds more and if your legal can't find them, fire them.



Yeah, right. I post approximately 30 minutes in any day, mostly well after work. Do your own homework.

If you want to believe that umpires are not culpable, go for it. If you want to believe that umpires don't go broke resolving lawsuits, fine with me. Pull your head into your turtle shell and live there. :rolleyes:

I have had at least three posts with evidence either deleted or edited, I'm through here.

Hmmm,
 

FitUmp56 wrote:

" . . . I'm through here."

Again, as it is with many of your posts, this is unclear:

Does this comment mean you are done with this thread or done posting on this site?

Also Donavan, I listed the catcher umpire law suit. If you research further you'll find that the original ruling was over turned on appeal.

Now of us are asking you to do our research. We just have problems with many of the things you say. And none of us have even remotely endorsed that umpires are not culpable in any situation -- we have just tried to place sanity in the discussion.

All of us know it is inevitable that a umpire will be sued (or an umpire association) and we all endorse buying the insurance.

Regards,

To the extent that's true, the deletion or editing had nothing to do with the "evidence" you posted.

I have had two experiences with doing the "right" thing legally...and neither was much fun. I may not do this for fun, but it does get incredible to watch the reaction from coaches and parents when the professional official imposes safety over all other factors.

This summer, Babe Ruth level. The bases are the kind with a square peg that is inserted into a square "donut" in the ground. The bases were not sitting properly because the bottom of the hole was filled with dirt. I would not start the game until all three bases were safely on the dirt. The home coach started at third base -- and after five minutes of digging with the wrong tool (he did not know there was a "right" tool or where to find it), he starts complaining that it is not his job to do this -- he is just a volunteer coach and someone else -- the town, the high school, the baseball association -- should do it right. I tell him that it is the home team's responsibility and we are not playing if the field is not safe. A couple of minutes more of unsuccessful digging -- and he says a few magic words to me that earn him an ejection before his team takes the field. A mom comes stomping onto the field, grabs the proper tool that has suddenly emerged from the equipment shed, and digs all three bases clear. After the game, I got more than an earful from this mom and a couple of other parents. They truly did not care about safety. They just wanted to play.

My other incident was a few years back in basketball. Massachusetts required all players have full mouthguards for all games and scrimmages. During a varsity scrimmage, I was asked by two parents who I knew -- one a fellow official and the other the wife of a lawyer -- if I noticed that their team did not have mouthguards. I asked the coach about it...and he said he told the players they did not need them since it was "only" a scrimmage. I ended the scrimmage right then. My partner thought I was wrong. The coach of the other team...which had driven almost an hour (and which had mouthguards) thought I was wrong. (The instructions from the MIAA were absolutely clear...mouthguards are required in scrimmages. The mouthguard rule was eliminated this year after many complaints from players and coaches.)

None of us officiate to win popularity contests. But it is really amazing how little support and respect we get when we insist on safety.

I need to get a hold of the PA softball rules interpreter. He has told PA FED umpires a story of a case he had to give a deposition on for West Virginia. The umpires hadn't walked the field before the game,sometime during the game a advertisement sign(one of the metal ones) was found near the foul line. The umpire placed the sign outside the fence.Later the wind picked up the sign and it hit a student cutting them. The city(its field,high school and umpires were all found guilty of negligence for the sign being there. Does anyone else here in PA remember this being told? :confused:

Actually I heard about this - I think it was in our college rules clinic. The way I heard it was they found the sign during their walk of the field and tossed it over the fence. The sign didn't hit a student but rather a parent. And yes, from what I remember of the story, they were sued. I don't know where it happened in WV though.

I'm going to have to email the gentleman in question and find out.