Jewelry rule causes yelling

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by grunewar

I talk to the league commissioner and dad and tell them I will not be responsible for anything that happens if they decide to leave it in. They agree and it wasn't an issue at all.

I'm glad nothing bad happened, but I hope you realize that this little disclaimer was a waste of breath and wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, had something untoward occurred.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm glad nothing bad happened, but I hope you realize that this little disclaimer was a waste of breath and wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, had something untoward occurred.

Understand. I am sending a formal note to the league Monday.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm glad nothing bad happened, but I hope you realize that this little disclaimer was a waste of breath and wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, had something untoward occurred.

So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

The disclaimer/waiver having no value and the official's liability are unrelated.

And, I'm not sure the device is illegal by rule. I'd have to see this wire to determine if I believe it's actually dangerous.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, what are you saying the legal implications could be? The presence of this device is a violation of the rules. The official allowed it anyway. The device then somehow causes any injury. Now the official is somehow liable. I've still never seen a law quoted on this subject. Judge Wapner (People's Court) often used the phrase "what a reasonable person would do" or something similar. Given all the information here, I do not see it as unreasonable that the device in question was allowed to stay.

I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

The reasonable person standard is a real standard, all right, but reasonable and customary practice in this instance is surely to enforce the rules. I don't see how you can consistently assert both this and this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

Although I believe that the device may be legal, I also agree with mbyron. Win, or lose, getting sued is an expensive proposition. Even the innocent have to defend themselves.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not a lawyer, but the issue is legal liability under tort law. When the plaintiff's lawyers find out that you did not enforce the rules, they'll come after you, your association, your assigner, the league, and anyone else who might have an attachable dollar. Frankly, I don't want to be in that position, whether I win or lose.

The reasonable person standard is a real standard, all right, but reasonable and customary practice in this instance is surely to enforce the rules. I don't see how you can consistently assert both this and this.

Reasonable in the eyes of the law and reasonable in the rules of the game would not necessarily have anything to do with each other. A1 gets clotheslined in a crowd and breaks his neck. The official was straightlined, saw nothing, called nothing. Will he get sued for this?

Matty Ross: "I have a good lawyer in J. Noble Daggett."

Ranger LaBoeuf: "She draws him like a gun." ***





***True Grit

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True Grit.

One of my favorite John Wayne movies. Best scene: Rooster Cogburn: "Fill your hands, you son of a *****."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Reasonable in the eyes of the law and reasonable in the rules of the game would not necessarily have anything to do with each other. A1 gets clotheslined in a crowd and breaks his neck. The official was straightlined, saw nothing, called nothing. Will he get sued for this?

About this: disagree. The reasonable person standard is contextual, and so the issue is what a reasonable person who is an official would do.

About this: I know you well enough to know that you understand the difference between getting a rule wrong and getting a judgment call wrong.

[Mark Padgett]

"Lindburgh Baby Kidnapped!"

Am I correct?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

"Lindburgh Baby Kidnapped!"

Am I correct?

I apologize for exercising people with the headline remark. When I said the thread title reminds me of "a headline from the 30's," I meant a 30's-style headline, not a specific headline.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm glad nothing bad happened, but I hope you realize that this little disclaimer was a waste of breath and wouldn't last 10 seconds in court, had something untoward occurred.

Actually having a verbal agreement with the youths guardian and a witness is acceptable in court. As long as you can prove you did your due diligence to get all the facts and warn against it. It is just much harder to enforce or defend than the written word.

Reasonable Persons test - Defined as conduct that is better than average but less than perfect.

Straight from my lawyers mouth to the thread. (Canadian law here but very similar if not the same as US Law)