The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Lawsuit Filed Against Umpire (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/80629-lawsuit-filed-against-umpire.html)

mbyron Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 788357)
I would say this isn't the strongest leg to stand on. As soon as the lineup cards are exchanged, the umpires have the duty to determine if the field is *still* fit for play.

I'm not sure it merits argument here, but I think it's still a good point for the umpires. The plaintiffs would have to show that (a) something changed between the start of the game and the time of the injury to make the field unplayable, and (b) the umpires should have been aware of this change. Failure to prove either point to the standard of evidence could excuse the umpires from liability.

Rich Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 788368)
I'm not sure it merits argument here, but I think it's still a good point for the umpires. The plaintiffs would have to show that (a) something changed between the start of the game and the time of the injury to make the field unplayable, and (b) the umpires should have been aware of this change. Failure to prove either point to the standard of evidence could excuse the umpires from liability.

Can players and coaches be expected to understand what "playable" means to the extent an umpire should?

MikeStrybel Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:50pm

We kicked this topic around over the weekend. I help coach my son's football team and one of the other coaches remarked, "Do umpires check the entire field every inning?" I laughed but then thougt how dead on he was. We are never required to maintain field safety. Never.

kylejt Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:54pm

I won't speak to other organizations, but in Little League once the plate umpire has both lineups, the UIC for the game, or game coordinator if there are no adult umpires, is in charge of whether the field is playable, or not. The managers have the okay up until that point.

mbyron Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 788369)
Can players and coaches be expected to understand what "playable" means to the extent an umpire should?

Since that's not a rules question, or a question for which umpires have special training, I think that the answer is probably yes.

JRutledge Mon Sep 19, 2011 01:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 788369)
Can players and coaches be expected to understand what "playable" means to the extent an umpire should?

Usually to be found liable for something, you have to be negligent in your normal duties. I doubt seriously that an umpire is going to be found negligent for what happens on a field with multiple games being played and when nothing has been brought to their attention or if they are not an expert on the safety of a fence. You see fences all the time that are probably installed or made incorrectly. I doubt the umpire would have to pay anything for what took place. Now the park district or the league might be another issue.

Peace

BayStateRef Mon Sep 19, 2011 04:10pm

I think most of these responses are missing the point. The umpires may -- ultimately -- have no liability. But it can be expensive, worrisome and time-consuming to defend a lawsuit, no matter how "frivolous" the claim may be against the umpire. That is what I would be concerned about: who is going to represent me to get my name tossed off the lawsuit.

Rich Mon Sep 19, 2011 04:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 788442)
I think most of these responses are missing the point. The umpires may -- ultimately -- have no liability. But it can be expensive, worrisome and time-consuming to defend a lawsuit, no matter how "frivolous" the claim may be against the umpire. That is what I would be concerned about: who is going to represent me to get my name tossed off the lawsuit.

This is where a NASO membership comes in handy.

JRutledge Mon Sep 19, 2011 04:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 788442)
I think most of these responses are missing the point. The umpires may -- ultimately -- have no liability. But it can be expensive, worrisome and time-consuming to defend a lawsuit, no matter how "frivolous" the claim may be against the umpire. That is what I would be concerned about: who is going to represent me to get my name tossed off the lawsuit.

Missing what point. If you have a state like mine where you get insurance for these issues for a sport you are licensed in or you have the NASO insurance, this part is not much of an issue.

Peace

Texas Aggie Mon Sep 19, 2011 06:06pm

Quote:

The waiver may not hold water if negligence is proven.
If it doesn't, then it was written by a bad lawyer who didn't know what he was doing. Releases are for ANY and ALL injuries, usually, except maybe for intentional torts.

TussAgee11 Mon Sep 19, 2011 08:10pm

What about player negligence? Why not sue the other defensive players for not telling him he was closing in on the fence? Competent players do that for their teammates.

What about his own negligence in believing he was coordinated enough to make a play on a ball?

TussAgee11 Mon Sep 19, 2011 08:11pm

Even better, why not negligence on the part of the batter? Popping up a ball in foul territory, he's not supposed to do that! Sue him!

Rich Ives Mon Sep 19, 2011 09:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 788459)
If it doesn't, then it was written by a bad lawyer who didn't know what he was doing. Releases are for ANY and ALL injuries, usually, except maybe for intentional torts.

Don't hold your breath.

mbyron Tue Sep 20, 2011 07:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 788442)
I think most of these responses are missing the point. The umpires may -- ultimately -- have no liability. But it can be expensive, worrisome and time-consuming to defend a lawsuit, no matter how "frivolous" the claim may be against the umpire. That is what I would be concerned about: who is going to represent me to get my name tossed off the lawsuit.

Rich mentions NASO membership, which includes insurance, but the purpose of any liability insurance is to address this issue. The insurance company is responsible for representing you, for removing your name when you're not liable, and for settling the case and paying when you are.

Might seem expensive until you need it. ;)

MikeStrybel Wed Sep 21, 2011 09:02am

Many years ago, an association I was involved with looked into a policy to protect those of us on the board. While researching it, one of our members could not find a case where a baseball umpire was successfully sued for administering a contest. He did find a couple cases where umpire misconduct (one threw a bat carelessly and another was drunk) led to case settlements. I am not sure that this isn't a bit of scare tactics by the insurance companies. The stories you read about from them are usually suppositional.

In Illinois, insurance coverage is as follows:

IHSA Official:
$1,000,000 per occurrence. Coverage includes defense costs and is excess of any other valid and collectible insurance. No liability coverage is provided for members while driving or riding in any auto.

NASO Membership:
$3,000,000 aggregate per event. Coverage is per occurrence (not claims made) protection for liability resulting from bodily injury, property damage, personal injury and advertising injury, and includes costs to defend against such claims as specified in the policy.

ABUA Membership: $2 Million per occurrence/$3 Million general aggregate coverage covers court judgments and awards; legal fees and court costs; $1 Million coverage for lawsuits for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury (defamation of charcter, libel, slander); $50,000 Coverage for fire damage. $0 deductible.

Do what is in your best interest.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1