Catcher sues baserunner for collision (co-ed ball)

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

She should also sue the league, and its director(s).

According to the article, she is!

[Paul L]

I haven't researched this in several years, but in California, the leading case on this issue was (and presumedly still is) as follows:

During a Super Bowl halftime informal touch football game including women and men, defendant ran into plaintiff from behind, knocked her down, and stepped on her hand. Defendant continued running until he tagged a ball-carrier hard enough to sprain her ankle. On the preceding play, plaintiff had complained about defendant’s excessively rough play. After several surgeries, Plaintiff's finger was amputated.

California Supreme Court said: ‘A participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants-i.e., engages in conduct that properly may subject him or her to financial liability-only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. Defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. The conduct is not even closely comparable to the kind of conduct-conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport-that is a prerequisite to the imposition of legal liability upon a participant in such a sport. Defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. Accordingly, this case falls within the primary assumption of risk doctrine, and thus the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.’
Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296

[greymule]

Interesting post, Paul L.

The court is probably right in that case, deplorable as the macho man's behavior may have been. Stupid judgment isn't necessarily reckless disregard. Like the guy who kept lining balls back at the woman pitcher. Stupid, but not criminal. The pitcher knows that line drives up the middle can happen.

But a deliberate crash—specifically prohibited by the rules and obviously dangerous even to a fool—may well be over the line.

Of course, by the time the lawyers are through, it will look as if the girl was at fault.

[Dakota]

"Reckless disregard" is an interesting legal concept. Every summer we have cases of parents leaving their children in the car resulting in the child's death due to heat. I heard a radio discussion between two lawyers on whether these parents could be charged. It seemed to boil down to whether they acted with "reckless disregard." If a parent forgot the child was in the back seat and went into work, for example, that would not be reckless disregard; that would be a tragic accident. On the other hand, if the parent left the child in the car and went into work knowing the child was there but assuming the child would be OK, that WOULD be reckless disregard.

Applying what seems to be the principle there, if the runner was only trying to score and lost his balance and crashed into the catcher, that would be a tragic accident. If, OTOH, the runner crashed into the catcher in an attempt to knock the ball loose, that would be reckless disregard. Crashing into a fielder while running full speed to knock the ball loose is prohibited behavior, not normal to play in recreational softball, and for the runner to do this showed reckless disregard for the safety of the catcher.

Seems like a sound argument to me. That probably means it will be tossed out by the court.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I haven't researched this in several years, but in California, the leading case on this issue was (and presumedly still is) as follows:

During a Super Bowl halftime informal touch football game including women and men, defendant ran into plaintiff from behind, knocked her down, and stepped on her hand. Defendant continued running until he tagged a ball-carrier hard enough to sprain her ankle. On the preceding play, plaintiff had complained about defendant’s excessively rough play. After several surgeries, Plaintiff's finger was amputated.

California Supreme Court said: ‘A participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants-i.e., engages in conduct that properly may subject him or her to financial liability-only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. Defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. The conduct is not even closely comparable to the kind of conduct-conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport-that is a prerequisite to the imposition of legal liability upon a participant in such a sport. Defendant was, at most, careless or negligent in knocking over plaintiff, stepping on her hand, and injuring her finger. Accordingly, this case falls within the primary assumption of risk doctrine, and thus the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.’
Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296

For those of you who think common sense may actually rule over law, remember that just because some court in Cali says it's this way doesn't make it so everywhere else. For instance, there was an interesting ruling just a couple years ago from the US Ninth Circuit Court concerning the Pledge of Allegiance. That is one of many from courts both state and federal in Cali that have not made their way east of the Colorado Riverborder with Nevada (i.e. the real United States).

Meanwhile, this ******* should be strung up...or have a certain troll umpire his games -- but that would probably fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

Live from the Gulag of Washington State,

[SC Ump]

"Grober had been ejected from a game two weeks before for aggressively running into the third baseman, court documents show. The umpire claimed it was the first time in 15 years he had felt compelled to take such an action."

Wow. I wonder if that's a 15 year vet where this was only his first ejection or whether he has over 30 years experience and just hasn't done any in the last 15 years. Either way, wow.

[greymule]

there was an interesting ruling just a couple years ago from the US Ninth Circuit Court concerning the Pledge of Allegiance

People who participate in this forum but do not follow the decisions of the various U.S. courts should know that the Ninth Circuit is routinely overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, often without comment. (In other words, "You're so pathetically wrong that we won't even go into it.") This has been going on for decades.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

there was an interesting ruling just a couple years ago from the US Ninth Circuit Court concerning the Pledge of Allegiance

People who participate in this forum but do not follow the decisions of the various U.S. courts should know that the Ninth Circuit is routinely overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, often without comment. (In other words, "You're so pathetically wrong that we won't even go into it.") This has been going on for decades.

Doesn't this the court whose jurisdiction includes Northern Cal?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Doesn't this the court whose jurisdiction includes Northern Cal?

That would, in fact, be the Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeals.