Can I be sued?
 

Last night I am working wreck ball at a NBA players summer camp. I have some pretty talented young kids. A mix of 5th and 6th graders. I see one warming up with a brace on his wrist that extends half way down his forearm. I ask to feel it and sure enough it has a 8 inch x 1 inch blade of steel from the palm of his hand down the wrist, etc. He broke his arm and is using this to protect it. I tell him he can not play with it and will need it removed and have a soft bandage instead. He runs up to his mom and she puts a ace bandage OVER it and the coach tries to get him back into the game.My boss/coach/administrator seats with the parent and debates it. I tell him I dont mind going to another court and having that referee come take my spot to play. Basically 4 other crews had said it was ok so I was in the wrong. I said I would talk to some lawyers and get him information that he or I would be held responsible if the kid hurt someone. I realized this is the only place I work where I am actually an employee. So I believe the business would be sued not me. I wanted to hear opinions and was hoping one of you was a lawyer...

Thanks in advance

I don't have an answer for you, but thought it ironic that I was reading your post, an advertisement for BetterBraces.com was at the top of my screen. :rolleyes:

I know that was funny. grunewar would you allow the kid to play with the brace?

I'd pick up the phone and seek a legal opinion from counsel in your area.

5th and 6th grade basketball isn't worth jeopardizing your financial well being.

I wouldn't. I'd say that I deem it dangerous. If someone tries to overrule that, then I'm not working the game. Easy enough, no attorneys needed.

You can be sued for anything.

+1

Earrings, illegal hair restraints, braces - none of it. I'm not working the game. Someone else can do it if they want.

In this case they are more likely to hurt someone else, than themselves! Hence the rule.

I'll walk away and live to work another day - and my conscience will be clear.

If only there was a rule to apply here... oh... wait!

(Seriously, if your "supervisor" lets him play, show him the rule. If he still lets him play, walk.)

It would depend upon what rules the facility has in place to govern these 5th and 6th grade contests. Of course, you need to act in your best interest and reasonably account for player safety. Basically, you wish to avoid the standard of being negligent in legal terms.

All of that said, I would not allow the youngster to participate. They can find another official, if the league/facility insists otherwise. Why? I would not put myself at risk and the NFHS rules book states the following:
RULE 3, SECTION 5 TEAM MEMBER’S EQUIPMENT, APPAREL
ART. 1 . . . The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate.
NOTE: Each state association may, in keeping with applicable laws, authorize exceptions to NFHS playing rules to provide reasonable accommodations to individual participants with disabilities and/or special needs, as well as those individuals with unique and extenuating circumstances. The accommodations should not fundamentally alter the sport, allow an otherwise illegal piece of equipment, create risk to the athlete/others or place opponents at a disadvantage.
ART. 2 . . . Guards, casts and braces must meet the following guidelines:
a. A guard, cast or brace made of a hard and unyielding substance, such as, but not limited to, leather, plaster, plastic or metal shall not be worn on the elbow, hand, finger/thumb, wrist or forearm; even though covered with soft
padding."

At a game this week my partner and I removed a sub for wearing earrings. At halftime her coach asked my rookie partner if she could tape them over and play. He made the unilateral decision to condone playing while taped over!!

I refused to start the 2nd half while she participated, telling everyone involved that it was a safety issue and not permitted under ANY circumstances. Both the gym supervisor onsite and the league organizer dictated she be permitted to play. Her father offered to sign a waiver.
Mind you, this is in DC suburbs where we have the highest per-capita population of lawyers in the world;);).

I sat and suggested to my partner he do the same. He finished the game doing one-whistle. Fortunately the game finished uneventfully.
Would anyone counsel differently?

I am getting treated for 3 sets of tire tracks on my back!

Rick, I would have done the same.

Shame on your partner!

No Discussion ...
 

Not safe? Not playing. Period. Let me be perfectly clear: Not playing. Any questions? Answer: Not Playing. Don't speak English? Ne joue pas. Want it in code? Otnay ayingplay.

Not just shame on the partner, shame on the gym supervisor and league organizer.

I would've handled it the same way: If the partner wants to do the game by himself, more power to him. If you work for those folks again and they try that nonsense just cite the first three words of NFHS 3-5-8: "Jewelry is prohibited." If it's NCAA rules cite 3-9-7: "Head decorations, head wear and jewelry are illegal." Can't get much more clear than that.


As Nevadaref posted, NFHS 3-5-2 backs up your decision. Case closed. It's hard for anyone to argue at that point, though some will.

"Can I be sued? "

Really? What do you think?

Of course you can.

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 parents 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.

Yes you can and yes you will if the player wearing the jewelery get hurt because she was wearing it or if another player got hurt because of the jewelry.

Why? Tort law will recogonize you and only you as the rules expert among everybody (tournament/camp director, coach, player, and/or parent). And because you are the rules expert you are ethically, professionaly, and liabilty wise, expected to do the correct thing no matter how stupid everybody else is or wants to be.

These are the same requirements that I must apply when fulfilling my responsibilities as a structural design engineer (not anymore, since my better half informed me on this past Valentine's Day that I was officially retired, but that is another story). You must put safety first no matter what the client (or idiots) want.

Years ago I was officiating (I was the R) a AAU girls' invitational tournament in Michigan and my partner was an attorney who was a litigation attorney. The HC of one of the teams, was a dentist (I wanted to smack him silly because like me his was a science professional) whose daughter was wearing a ring on one of her fingers which she said she was not able to remove. We informed her that we would not let her play while wearing it. Her father said that he would sign a statement that he wouldn't sue us if his daughter got hurt. My partner told him that we allowed her to play with his signed statement and she got hurt that he, the father, would definitely sue my partner and I because my partner would sue me and himself on behalf of his daughter for being negligent. I busted a gut laughing and furthermore his daughter found a way to remove the ring.

MTD, Sr.

Bay State:

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

MTD, Sr.

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

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?

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...

Just to be clear...
 

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.

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.

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.

Thank you Bob.