Law Suit in San Antonio Area

[GPC2]

http://www.star-telegram.com/358/v-p...ry/363021.html

[JasonTX]

From TASO:

TASO's Executive Director, Steve Ellinger, notified TASO Board members today with the following text:
---------------------
All –
A summary judgment in favor of the five officials was granted by the court in September 2007.
The effect of this ruling was that the court determined that the officials were not liable for coach English’s injuries.
A motion was subsequently filed by Midwest Employers Casualty requesting the court to reconsider its ruling effectively dismissing the individual officials from the lawsuit.
I received notification this afternoon from TASO’s attorney that the court upheld its prior ruling and the individual officials are out of the case.
TASO’s counsel will now file a motion for summary judgment asking the court to determine that since the officials were not found liable for coach English’s injuries, TASO should not have any liability as well.
If you have any questions, please let me know.

[ace]

very interesting...

sounds like the insurance company hit a rough spot and was hard up for cash... waiting for the 2 year statue of limitations was about expire 1 day after they filed the law-suit....

sad situation. glad the fault has been removed from the officials.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by ace

sounds like the insurance company hit a rough spot and was hard up for cash... waiting for the 2 year statue of limitations was about expire 1 day after they filed the law-suit....

Or it could be a very smart legal tactic. Memories can easily fade with time.

[w_sohl]

to hand this article out to coaches who b*tch when you tell them to get back? I don't know how many times I ask coaches to get back and they tell me to worry about the game and not the sidelines. I tell them that it is my working area and I can't focus on the game if I am worried about getting injured by a coach or player that is not where they are supposed to be.

[waltjp]

I think it's something that should be emphasized during the pre-season meeting with coaches. I think it's something that the assignors should be telling the AD's. I think it's something that should be mentioned during the pre-game meetings with coaches. And I think it's something that should be addressed on the field. Warn on the first infraction and penalize as necessary.

If every officiating crew handled the situation in this manner we'd have much fewer problems.

[JasonTX]

Here in Texas, when this incident first took place our state organization made sideline enforcement a point of emphasis and during our pregames we used this as our motivation. Even then, enforcement was spotty accross the state and the importance still didn't sink in with the coaches. Then came this lawsuit and the state organization really hammered away at individual chapters about the importance of being strict. The majority of officials realized the potential to be part of a lawsuit served as motivation to prevent this from happening. The reports from the state indicate that the officials in Texas have done a tremendous job and showed some very consistent enforcement. Once coaches realized that this wasn't officials being nit-picky but that we just didn't want to risk a lawsuit they soon began to comply. It's not perfect but each year we hammer away at it the easier it will be and the more compliant they will be. We especially wanted to be even stronger at the jr. high levels. The theory is that the coaches of jr. high teams today will be tommorows varsity coaches. We use it as sort of a training ground to get the coaches used to it. Those levels are also good training for new officials so that they build a habit of being strong in the enforcement.

[Texas Aggie]

According to the story (I haven't seen the actual suit, so my comment here MAY be a bit unfair):

"Midwest alleges Harpole was negligent for not controlling his speed down the sideline and not watching where he was going. It alleges the game crew failed to enforce the rule and even "encouraged" coaches to "stand in an area of the field that the referees knew or should have known was dangerous."

Speaking as a Texas attorney, I am embarrassed that one of my (supposed) peers is making this totally stupid, not to mention contradictory, allegation. How in the hell is the area "dangerous" if the official is controlling his speed and watching where he was going -- which it alleges is his duty to do? Honestly, this is something a second year law student writing a brief for an appellate advocacy class or function would be laughed at for saying. Further, while I "encourage" everyone to drive rather than walk when they want to go from Dallas to Waco in less than 3 hours, does that make me responsible if that person is in an auto accident? Its patently stupid to allege as much. All this is granting their underlying premise, that an official owes a coach ANY duty on the football field. He doesn't, at least not a legal duty that he wouldn't have anyway as an average citizen.

Sorry for the legal rant. It just drives me crazy that attorneys aren't sanctioned when they assert this drivel.

Speaking procedurally, its likely that the insurance company, having gone this far, will submit an appeal to the San Antonio Court of Appeals. Chances are good this judgment will be upheld and the Texas Supreme Court probably won't hear it, unless the COA reverses it.

As far as sideline behavior on the field, I didn't have too many problems this year. Our chapter got out the word that we would enforce the rule from Varsity down to 7th grade. I had maybe 2 warnings the whole year and passed on maybe 3 or 4 more that I *could* have flagged. Never got anywhere near a 5 or a 15 yard penalty. I worked more in the middle of the field, though, than I ever have. I got on one of my wings one game for not keeping his sideline under control, but he improved in later games I had with him.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

According to the story (I haven't seen the actual suit, so my comment here MAY be a bit unfair):

"Midwest alleges Harpole was negligent for not controlling his speed down the sideline and not watching where he was going. It alleges the game crew failed to enforce the rule and even "encouraged" coaches to "stand in an area of the field that the referees knew or should have known was dangerous."

Speaking as a Texas attorney, I am embarrassed that one of my (supposed) peers is making this totally stupid, not to mention contradictory, allegation. How in the hell is the area "dangerous" if the official is controlling his speed and watching where he was going -- which it alleges is his duty to do? Honestly, this is something a second year law student writing a brief for an appellate advocacy class or function would be laughed at for saying. Further, while I "encourage" everyone to drive rather than walk when they want to go from Dallas to Waco in less than 3 hours, does that make me responsible if that person is in an auto accident? Its patently stupid to allege as much. All this is granting their underlying premise, that an official owes a coach ANY duty on the football field. He doesn't, at least not a legal duty that he wouldn't have anyway as an average citizen.

Sorry for the legal rant. It just drives me crazy that attorneys aren't sanctioned when they assert this drivel.

Speaking procedurally, its likely that the insurance company, having gone this far, will submit an appeal to the San Antonio Court of Appeals. Chances are good this judgment will be upheld and the Texas Supreme Court probably won't hear it, unless the COA reverses it.

As far as sideline behavior on the field, I didn't have too many problems this year. Our chapter got out the word that we would enforce the rule from Varsity down to 7th grade. I had maybe 2 warnings the whole year and passed on maybe 3 or 4 more that I *could* have flagged. Never got anywhere near a 5 or a 15 yard penalty. I worked more in the middle of the field, though, than I ever have. I got on one of my wings one game for not keeping his sideline under control, but he improved in later games I had with him.

Unfortunately, it was totally stupid for an attorney to allege that McDonald's is negligent for some women burning her whatsit when she opened a cup of scalding coffee between her legs but somebody bought the argument. I'm glad that common sense has prevailed so far in this matter. What about assumption of risk on the football field?

[Texas Aggie]

Without getting into a law review type discussion, you have to understand that different jurisdictions view negligence law -- which includes who owes a duty to whom and when that duty is breached -- different ways. I have no doubt there are some states this type of suit might have gone to trial in.

The problem with the McDonalds example is that case DID go to a jury trial. So while you can blame the justice system if you want (and I agree that the case was stupid), it was ordinary Americans which awarded that idiot almost 3 million bucks.

[waltjp]

Just wondering - are you aware of the evidence presented in the McDonalds case or is it just the idea that suing because you spill hot coffee on you is a silly idea?