Coach sues player

Please tell me this is a joke....lol. 

I would think he would sue the league and tap the liability insurance. That is unless the parents are wealthy and become responsible for their son's actions. I'm guessing it will be discovered this guy had some previous Achillies problem and looking for a cash cow.

Previous conditions are ignored by the law.  The legal concept is you take your victims as they come.

 

I was in a men's baseball league years ago and one of the players who had just struck out threw a strike with his helmet into the dugout and hit me dead square in the face.  I don't remember much after that except both of my fists missing his nose by a few inches.

That is hilarious! Can the kid sue the chiropractor for being stupid?

That's the problem in today's society....lol..what a joke.  The people of that league should protest his business facilities!

WOW.  This guy just cut his own throat.  Too bad his career depends on clients from the local population.

 

I want to see mr chiropractor explain How a helmet tossed in the air severed his Achilles' tendon. Not likely...

This is as much a commentary on our legal system as it is baseball.

 

Plaintiff attorney takes case on contingency hoping that the Parents' homeowners insurance carrier pays up in order to prevent an expensive and lengthy defense process.  Very little downside for the plaintiff or plaintiff attorney in our current system should they be unsuccessful.

 

Happens every day in the US of A.

Actually there is a lot of downside, which is why you don't hear all that much about these sort of things. Frivilous filings aren't nearly as common as the general public thinks they are. Every time this comes up, you'll hear how ridiculous the McDonald's lawsuit was. "Oh, my God! She got $6 mil because her coffee was too hot!" No one ever bothers to actually look up the facts of the case. Some suits are ridiculous and, either they get nowhere or some foolish Plaintiff's attorney avoids Summary Judgment and actually gets it to trila where he stands no chance of winning, spends a boatload of his own money, doesn't understand that he won't win, and his client ends up paying the other side's attorney fees and costs. Most of the time, though, the press just paints the suit in a light that sounds ridiculous and only disseminates the facts that back that idea up when, in fact, the suit may have merit.

No, there are some pretty ridiculous ones that are filed. I know because in my line of work I've been a target. One of my closest friends in a PI attorney. He's not the ambulance chaser type but there's plenty of them out there.

There are "some," but not nearly as many as people think. Certainly not enough to call it a problem with the system and the truly ridiculous ones don't end in settlement. When they are truly without merit it really isn't that expensive to fight them. I have seen a few ridiculous ones go to court and it always ends with the Plaintiff paying after they get $0. I'm not saying it doesn't happen - just that it isn't "the problem with the legal system."

Varies from state to state but here loser doesn't pay. Cost to defend IS substantial and here it IS a problem.

"Loser pays" is a British sytem. However, every state has statutory ways that the Plaintiff who loses can be forced to pay costs and attorney fees. However, you are correct that it isn't automatic. Where is "here" and why do you consider it a problem?

I'll just say I am in one of the states that doesn't have "loser pay" therefore nothing to discourage frivilous suits. State had long been knon as a "tort hell". Some reforms & has imprvoved somewhat but still plenty of frivilous suits.

First, this injury seems to me that it would fall under the assumed risk of participating, even as a coach, in the game of baseball. Second, the guy is a putz. Third, despite protestations here to the contrary,way too many lawsuits filed are indeed frivolous. It's just that our legal system treats them seriously. 

 

If you don't believe me, talk to a defense lawyer in the employment law arena.

the coach is an ass and our country would be better served if he walked in front of a moving freight train.

 

the judge who actually lets this case move forward should be removed from the bench and forced to watch soccer and figure skating for the rest of his life.

 

a few comments up a poster said something about the costs not being much - my lawyer charges 400.00 per hour for his time and 275.00 per for one of his younger staffers how long do you thing it takes to get out of control, one thing our legal system is very good at is creating billable hours. the process is slow and out of date, actually it is out of control...i don't understand why a parent should have to pay to defend a 12 yr old for celebrating a walk off win by throwing his helmet in the air.... like every single guy on ESPN does when it happens.

 

I can't believe i wasted 3 minutes commenting on it...the coach should be forced to take a bus ride to florida with the B team and moms only!!!

 

 

First, a declaimer. I am an attorney. I am a staff attorney for a state District Court. It is my job to review filings, do the legal research, make recommendations to judges and, sometimes, write the orders.

 

Rob, yes, a civil defense attorney would tell me there are way too many frivilous suits. In fact, they do so quite often. In fact, especially in employment law, I bet a defense attorney couldn't name one lawsuit he thought WASN'T frivious. They think every suit filed is frivilous.

 

old school, civil law is a process. Judges don't get to look at a case, say "that's stupid!" and throw it out. A suit is filed. If the defense thinks they haven't stated any claims on which relief can be granted, they can file to have it dismissed under the rules. If indeed the petition contains no actual defense under which the court could grabt relief, the suit should be dismissed. This means assuming everything alleged in the petition is true. For example, if this guy had sued but didn't claim any actual damage was done, even if everything he said were true, the court couldn't grant relief, so it would be dismissed. The court isn't allowed to make decisions on whether the facts are true or not, that is for a jury later, unless the plaintiff waives the right to a jury.

 

After that, if it seems that there are no genuine disputes as to the facts and that leads to one side winning, the court can grant summary judgment and the case is over. Let's say, for example, you are sued for breach of contract. You file for summary judgment with an affidavit that you were 17 years old when you signed the contract and therefore it is void. The plaintiff doesn't contend in their answer that you were over eighteen. Your affidavit stands as proof that you weren't legally able to sign a contract and that any contract you sign is void. The plaintiff didn't provide any argument that what you said was false. Your position stands as unopposed and so, no genuine of fact is at issue and the case is found in your favor.

 

Now, in the British system, the loser always pays all the costs. In America, every state will have some statute under which the court can (but doesn't have to) make the loser pay either costs or costs and attorney fees. Many states have statutes that allow a plaintiff who loses a lawsuit to pay additional penalties (sometimes triple) if the court finds it frivilous. How do frivilous suits get to trial? Like I said, the court isn't allowed to decide whether a fact argued is true or not . That is usually the jurisdiction of a jury. So, if a plaintiff claims something wild, the judge must assume it to be true. If it gets to trial and the plaintiff can't prove it, now it can become frivilous.

 

Now, I've seen hundreds of these cases and one thing I can tell you. Almost NEVER is what you hear from the media a good representation of the facts of a lawsuit. usually, it is some bare bones version that stirs up controversy. I've got the best example I'll give in a separate post.

First off, let me just say that my comments are based on the facts as they were stated....a kid celebrating threw his helmet up and it happened to hit a coach.  No way to know if there's more to it or not...if there is, my thoughts may change.  Based only on that....here goes:

 

I coached my son's teams from the time he was 5 or 6 until last year (10 years).  I have a hard time thinking of one guy who I met during those 10 years who would be ridiculous enough to file a lawsuit against a kid for celebrating a win....in fact, in most cases, it was probably me throwing stuff up in the air....lol.    The guy is an embarassment to the coaching community and I really hope that everyone in the town where the guy is realizes it and never allows another kid to play for him.

Liebeck v. McDonald's. What you heard in the media: an elderly woman buys a cup of coffee from McDonald's. She spills the coffee in her lap and sues Mickey D's because it was too hot. She wins and a jury awards her $3 million. Wow! What a travesty of justice. Coffee is supposed to be hot, right? Ridiculous! This is held up for years as the biggest example of what is wrong with our justice system.

 

The whole story. Ms. Liebeck was a passanger in the car. After buying the coffee they pulled into a parking spot so she could put in sugar and cream. She spilled the coffee in her lap. At trial it was shown that McDonalds routinely served their coffee at 180 - 190 degrees. What's the problem. The industry standard was to serve coffe at 140 - 160 degrees. So what? There is a huge difference. If a scalding liquid hits human skin at 150 degrees it would have to stay in contact for 12-15 seconds before 3rd degree burns would happen. At 190 degrees that time could be as little as TWO seconds. Further, McDonalds had numerous reports of burns from there coffe in the past and paid off their customers having determined that it was worth it. It came out on the stand that they had figured the costs. When their coffee was at the higher tempature, it took longer to cool to a drinkable temp and fewer people hung around for refills. The savings was determined to be more than the risk of a suit. They admitted to over 700 reports of burns but testified that the number didn't economically justify a change in practice.

 

Initially, Ms. Liebeck asked McDonalds for $10,000 to cover medical expenses. McDonalds offerd her $800. She got a lawyer. She was in the hospital for eight days and required reconstructive surgery on her vagina because of 3rd degree burns. Eventually, after further surgeries, the medical bills were much higher.

 

The jury awarded her around $250,000 for her injuries and anothe $2.7 million in punative damages. The $2.7 mil was McDonald's own estimates of its profits on coffee sales for ONE DAY. The judge later knocked the entire award down to a total of $640,000. McDonalds appealed, but settled for $600,000 before the appeal was heard.

 

So, when I hear the facts of a case from the papers (and USA Today can be the worst), I take it with a grain of salt.

 

The jury

If you are interested, just google "images for McDonalds coffee case." However, be warned, they are quite graphic. Then come back and tell me how frivilous the suit was.

Roothog....not sure how this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

The topic is about a personal injury lawsuit. The vast majority of the responses are of the opinion that this is just another example of some ridiculous frivilous lawsuit. How is an example that shows that not all stories that appear to describe frivolity in the legal system are the whole story not relevant?

roothog66:  What do you not understand about the internet?  We don’t need any rabble-rousers like you, showing up here and trying to introduce new-fangled ideas like: Nuance! Proportionality!  Measured Response!  As an American, I will respond exactly as I want to respond and I will judge – likely harshly – anyone else’s response even though I used my freedom to respond in the manner I felt like and that other person is just wrong and that should not be accepted.  It is my correct view that every single action, happening at any moment, to anyone of the 300 million Americans is direct proof the unwinding of our moral fabric.  How can you possibly assert that we should consider treating this event, or any event, as isolated!

Let me be clear. I'm not saying this isn't a BS lawsuit. Just sayin' don't believe you know the whole story from the very short media coverage.

 

A couple of points, though. It wouldn't necessarily fall under an assumed risk, depending on a lot of things. The kid reportedly threw the helmet off as he was scoring. Does a local rule cover this? Did he toss it in the air or fling it recklessly toward the coach? If there was indeed a torn achille's heel...However, you would have to prove that the kid either intended or at least knew or should have known his actions would cause harm. That will be very difficult to prove. he's asking for $500K pain and suffering and $100k inactual damages. Assuming that he proves the reckless intent and can prove that his injury will cost $100k now and/or in the future, there is almost 0% chance a jury woud award pain and suffering. I've only seen jurys bite on that one when the actions are downright sinester.

 

Also, as to cost, believe it or not, this kind of lawsuit would normally fall under your homeowners insurance (if you have it) and they would end up paying for the defense. Also, and I see this all the time. Say the jury gives him $$ for actaul medical expenses. The insurance comapny usually ends up getting that money anyway. Of course, the attorney gets his contracted amount first. Many times, a plaintiff wins his suit and the only people getting paid are the medical insurance and the attorney.

To my prior point.  We all end up paying for these types of claims.

 

Defense costs and judgments that get paid by insurance companies ultimately get reflected in premiums that we all pay.

At the same time, you don't want a system that chills those with legitimate claims from filing suit. So, the question would be, who do you want deciding what plaintiffs deserve their day in court, a court of law who will defer facts to the jury or the HSbaseballweb community who don't need more than the bare facts to make a judgment, obviously.

The paperwork on the lawsuit said Lakeside Little League.  If it truly is a sanctioned LL program, both the local league and the national league have liability insurance to cover these types of incidents.  Not sure why the lawsuit is against the player, when the league's coverage should take care of it.

Different causes of action. A lot of the facts aren't truly revealed until discovery. You don't want to get into discovery and then find some fact that exonerates any liability for the insurance company and you don't have the right party in the action. It is easier to dismiss a party than to add one. Plus, trust me, if the plaintiff didn't make him a party, the league would have.

 

 

No sanctioned LL is going to make a 14-year old kid a party to a lawsuit....no way LL International would allow it. 

 

Roothog....let me ask you this.  You said you're a lawyer.  If this coach came to you....and said "a kid celebrating a win threw his helmet up and wrecked my achilles...I want to sue him".....what would you have told him???

Sure, but let me ask this. let's say that the kid did throw his helmet in a reckless manner that seriously injured the coach. Should he have to pay for his medical bills? If he has medical insurance, should that company have to foot the bill? How about time missed from work? (yeah, I know AFLACK!) So, yeah, sometimes suits are filed with nothing more than the idea that the insurance will settle and give your client enough to cover lost wages and medical bills. Nothing wrong with that. You can rest assured, he isn't expecting the insurance company to settle for big $$$ Unless the lawyer is an idiot and likes putting in a lot of work for no pay, he knows that ain't happening. But don't act like insurance companies are great entities. Don't take for granted that this guy didn't already try to file a claim with the leagues insurance and got turned down leaving only the option of suing.

I'd certainly have a lot of questions. If this was all he'd tell me, I'd show him the door. But, my point is, don't assume the story is as simple as that. It may be, but I'm telling you, I've seen hundreds of cases come through my court and then seen the reports on the local news and I wouldn't have even recognized the case from the media report.
If it is truly nothing more than described, I find it hard to believe he'd find an attorney to take the case. But you have to ask, unless you assume he's faking the injury, does it seem likely that a simple helmet tossed in the air would result in a torn achile's heel?

I'll fall back to the McDonalds case. All the media reported was "woman spills coffee and sues McDonalds claiming it is too hot." Of course, in its simplest form that sounds totally ridiculous. Now go look at this photo (WARNING: Very disturbing injury photo):

 

 

 

and then tell me if the media was telling the whole story. I'm not saying that is happening here, I'm just saying I see it happen all the time that the media leads people to a conclusion without properly relaying all of the relevant facts.

Fair enough. Link removed. Though, I don't think it was quite showing what you think it was.

       

I would imagine he threw his helmet in the same reckless manner any other player would celebrating a win. My guess is this clown also signed a release when he agreed to coach to not hold the league responsible for injuries. If he was injured by all means file a claim with the leagues insurance. Does the guy not have medical insurance himself? Thought everybody was covered now with Obamacare? I recently paid 3K for a tooth my son lost in a baseball tournament not to mention the fees for a root canal, etc from an incident in a tournament. Did I sue anyone? Hell no! Remember the old saying; shit happens! It's people like this so called coach that cause problems for the rest of us & his legal eagle council that give the legal profession a bad name.