Can I be sued?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I brought a similar situation to this forum a few years back, where the site manager of a HS varsity summer tournament insisted that I allow a girl to play with earrings. She too was willing to sign a waiver.

I received a good dressing down here from an attorney/official explaining two things: the waiver is essentially worthless and the liability to me was huge if anyone were injured. (The player, her patents and site manager cannot waive liability for any other player if one were to be injured by the illegal jewelry.)

I have never forgotten that great advice and have repeatedly had to use it.

Never, ever allow a player to participate with jewelry.

Bay State:

You have heard Alan Greenberger speak too, ;-).

MTD, Sr.

[Kelvin green]

i need to post this disclaimer. None of the infomation in this gratuitous post creates an attorney client relationship. It is not considered specific legal advice and is for general information only.

I see you live in the Salt Lake area where I officiate. I cannot legally comment on Utah law as I am not licensed to practice in Utah. But as a fellow Utah official I would not ever allow this in my game.

I am a licensed attorney in California. Under a negligence theory you can be sued when you have a duty of reasonable care and that somehow the duty is breached, and that because of the breach of duty there were damages caused by that breach. The rule book provides a pretty good description of what an official's duty is. The official's duty would be based on a "rasonable referee" standard...that of a reasonable official based on training and experience. In many jursidictions there is a "gross negligence" standard... other jurisdictions still use the standard negligence standard... AS an attorney I would argue that allowing a hard metal brace is a gross deviation of the standard of care in a gross negligence state. In a standard negligence, it is easy to argue that in a close quartered contact sport like basketball that it is a common sense decision to not allow this.

There are too many people that can get hurt here. I have has casts, hard braces, finger braces, and covered earings. I have had this happen twice in the spring. The kids just dont play in my game... In a standard game since I am a contractor game administration does not have control. If a game administrator tried to over rule me, i would walk off the flooras I am not subjecting myself to a lawsuit over a $20 rec game...

I wonder what makes you think you were an employee? Did they do all the hiring paperwork? did they deduct FICA? did they pay workers's comp? ...if you were truly an employee maybe there is business liability but i am not going to find out....

As I have told a couple of sets of parents. No way No how Not on this planet

[Adam]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment:

We officiate lots of summer games with rule exceptions. What prevents a league from using NFHS rules but allowing jewelry as an exception right along with running clocks and fewer timeouts?

[Kelvin green]

running clocks and time outs dont really deal with safety or the duty of care that we all have...the litigation would need to prove that it deviated from recognized standards. A league could "waive a safety rule" and all it would do is create liability for the league and its officers because recognized standards exist..

I also believe that the courts would wonder why a league would waive a safety rule. in many negligence cases, courts deal with forseeability. if it is forseeable that there would be an injury there may be a cause of action. Allowing jewelry and resultant injury would be forseeable if allowed. (there can be a whole discussion on zone of danger/forrseeable plaintiffs/ etc)

if a league told me they were waivng a safety rule like that I'd walk away because the court would still apply a reasonable referee standard to the case...I could just see the dialogue...

how does any one explain if a person got hurt because of jewelry that it was reasonable or prudent to allow them to play in a game where bodies get tangled, where arms are swung, hands hit, bodies go the floor?

all the plaintiff has to do is convince a judge or jury that allowing the jewelry was not reasonable... if it is obvious to them you lose...and so does the league that said it was ok...

[Sharpshooternes]

So even if a knee brace comes from a manufacture and is unaltered, if it has hard metal or plastic pieces on it it should not be allowed, correct?

Just trying to reconcile this (3.5 Sit. A): "First, any equipment which, in the judgment of the referee, is dangerous to others. In this respect, elbow, wrist, hand, finger or forearm guards, casts or braces made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, plastic, metal or any other hard substance shall always be declared illegal "even though covered with soft padding."

with this: " Knee and ankle braces which are unaltered from the manufacturer's original design are permitted and do not require any additional padding/covering."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So even if a knee brace comes from a manufacture and is unaltered, if it has hard metal or plastic pieces on it it should not be allowed, correct?

Just trying to reconcile this (3.5 Sit. A): "First, any equipment which, in the judgment of the referee, is dangerous to others. In this respect, elbow, wrist, hand, finger or forearm guards, casts or braces made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, plastic, metal or any other hard substance shall always be declared illegal "even though covered with soft padding."

with this: " Knee and ankle braces which are unaltered from the manufacturer's original design are permitted and do not require any additional padding/covering."

The standard is different for a knee brace than it is for a brace worn on the hand or arm, for an obvious reason.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

running clocks and time outs dont really deal with safety or the duty of care that we all have...the litigation would need to prove that it deviated from recognized standards. A league could "waive a safety rule" and all it would do is create liability for the league and its officers because recognized standards exist..

I also believe that the courts would wonder why a league would waive a safety rule. in many negligence cases, courts deal with forseeability. if it is forseeable that there would be an injury there may be a cause of action. Allowing jewelry and resultant injury would be forseeable if allowed. (there can be a whole discussion on zone of danger/forrseeable plaintiffs/ etc)

if a league told me they were waivng a safety rule like that I'd walk away because the court would still apply a reasonable referee standard to the case...I could just see the dialogue...

how does any one explain if a person got hurt because of jewelry that it was reasonable or prudent to allow them to play in a game where bodies get tangled, where arms are swung, hands hit, bodies go the floor?

all the plaintiff has to do is convince a judge or jury that allowing the jewelry was not reasonable... if it is obvious to them you lose...and so does the league that said it was ok...

Thanks, Kelvin, that's along my thinking, but worded much better than I could have done it. I wanted to flesh that out a bit, thanks.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The standard is different for a knee brace than it is for a brace worn on the hand or arm, for an obvious reason.

Good point. Didn't really notice the upper/lower extremity theme. Makes sense.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Good point. Didn't really notice the upper/lower extremity theme. Makes sense.

Note that the "extra" restrictions are on the elbow and below -- not the whole arm.

Very few (real-life) restrictions on above the elbow.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Note that the "extra" restrictions are on the elbow and below -- not the whole arm.

Very few (real-life) restrictions on above the elbow.

Thank you Bob.