| || |
Litigation Nation vs Little League Baseball
June 25, 2012 - Michael Palmer
There’s no crying in baseball. But there are evidently ridiculous lawsuits.
A woman in New Jersey is suing a little league player after his errant throw hit her in the face. Elizabeth Lloyd is seeking more than $150,000 in damages from the 11-year-old catcher.
If this case is not thrown out by our litigation nation and the greed oriented legal profession, we are in trouble.
I will have to find out the statute of limitations for law suits on little league baseball players who hit and injure fans or damage parked cars with baseballs.
I was a human rain delay at the plate because of foul balls. I would spray a hail storm of the little white spheres outside of the fences for fans to dodge. I had a good arm, but occasionally would let fly with a wild toss which would sail into the stands, rows of lawn chairs or row of fence standing official and coaching wanna-bes waiting to comment on the play.
I think my unofficial tally of windshields and back glass stood at a hefty 15 kills when I retired my glove from softball in 2005.
I had two confirmed KO's from my playing days, one fan took a foul ball to the skull and one caught the barrel of a bat a pitcher sawed off at the handle crowding me inside with a waist high fastball in high school.
Recalling the case in which Little League Baseball Incorporated settled an injury litigation for $125,000 in Staten Island, NY. With that example of logic in court settlements, it is quite possible that this woman will end up getting her money.
The injury in that NY case? Some ligament damage that a 12-year old suffered from sliding into second base. The family sued almost three years after the fact on the grounds that the coach was negligent in not teaching the kid proper sliding technique. Absolutely ridiculous. If a coach lets a kid take batting practice without a helmet then I can see a problem and certainly some negligence, but proper sliding technique? C'mon people!
By playing sports you assume some risk of injury, and when you attend a sporting event you also must assume some risk from errant balls, bats or flying players looking to catch a foul ball.
As in the McDonald's coffee settlement, if this lunatic wins her case, it's only going to hurt amateur athletics in the long run and encourage others to file frivolous suits Even if the case is settled out of court and this woman gets cash, there will be fewer players, fewer coaches, fewer teams, and less opportunities for kids to play a great game in a great environment.
The system was designed to assist people genuinely injured through malfeasance or gross negligence.
According to a local legal professional, “During the turn of the 19th century one of our older laws which was passed by on both the Federal and State level is called Assumption of risk.
Assumption of the Risk is a defense in the law of torts, which bars a plaintiff from recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which he was participating at the time of his injury. It operates as a complete bar to liability on the theory that upon assumption of the risk, there is no longer a duty of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff; without a duty owed by the defendant, there can be no negligence on his part.[
This defense is commonly used in cases of injuries occurring during risky recreational activities, such as skiing, paragliding, and scuba diving. It also applies in less dangerous activities Football, Baseball and other contact and non contact sports. If this law applies in Boxing and MMA how does it not at a Little League diamond.
The only time this Law would not apply is when there was known negligence.” end quote.
Perhaps this lady should be counter-sued for fraud.
If you are a sports fan, hope and pray that the case is thrown out.
No comments posted for this article.
Post a Comment