Lawsuit Filed Against Umpire

[mdc18]

Thanks to all of you for the respopnses. The association and umpires have legal repesentation in place (that was the first thing we did). The main reason for my post was to see if anyone else had dealt with a situation like this before and could add some insight.

This was and Adult Baseball Game played strictly under OBR. According to rule 3.10 (a): the manager of the home team shall be the sole judge in deciding to start the game due to unfit playing decisions.

Not sure that this rule has any merit in court. Hopefully we will get this resolved. Thanks again for the repsonses.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mdc18

Thanks to all of you for the respopnses. The association and umpires have legal repesentation in place (that was the first thing we did). The main reason for my post was to see if anyone else had dealt with a situation like this before and could add some insight.

This was and Adult Baseball Game played strictly under OBR. According to rule 3.10 (a): the manager of the home team shall be the sole judge in deciding to start the game due to unfit playing decisions.

Not sure that this rule has any merit in court. Hopefully we will get this resolved. Thanks again for the repsonses.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

[Texas Aggie]

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]

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]

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!