Coach sues player

Sigh. Again, don't assume you have anywhere near all the facts. How was your son's tooth broken? If it had come from someone recklessly throwing a bat, would you feel the same? How about if the other team was celebrating a win and a kid recklessly threw his helmet into your kid's face? Those waivers don't mean the league/tournament, etc. isn't responsible for torts. Those waivers only go so far. They cover injury risks that could be expected to be assumed from the sport. For example, you sign a waiver when you enter a USSSA sport, but if your kid fell in the outfield into a bed of rattle snakes, you could still sue the park. Again, the idea that he "tossed the helmet in the air" came from the kid's dad. Could it be possible it didn't happen exactly like that? Again, I'm not saying the suit has merit, I'm just pointing out that you can't make that judgment based on a 60 word article from the newspaper.

Based on what? I can tell you based on years and years of dealing with tort cases that I can say with 99% confidence that you don't have the whole story. Sort of like Fox News.

the legal profession needs no help with giving itself a bad name - it stands on its own merit as rotten, kinda like lipstick on a pig

First, there is some truth to that statement, but the idea has merit. the legal notion is that we don't let judges decide the truth of the argument in most cases. We leave that for a jury. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? It may seem strange, but it's a system that works well. However, the attorney who wants to claim the sky is green will eventually pay, trust me.  Once you've seen an attorney with a ridiculously false claim in front of a judge, you understand.

Personally (and I didn't actually know I was making a persona attack when I mentioned Fox - though I guess I could have made a reasonable assumption) I find MSNBC to be just as deplorable as Fox, just in the opposite direction. Neither can be trusted. Most of the other networks are more trustworthy, but they are still in the news "business" and, in the end, what sells advertising is what drives the tilt.

P.S. I'm more likely to watch Fox than MSNBC. They are both heavily slanted, but MSNBC is just plain boring. At least Fox knows how to put on an interesting show.

So shouldn't this guy also being suing the kids coach, you know, for not teaching him to avoid throwing his helmet recklessly?

Oh yeah...um...never mind...

So if you were wrongly accused of a crime you would hire a kindergarten teacher because there's a perception they're nicer people?

I know you are kidding, but it does bring up an important point. A jury apportions blame in its verdict. A sheet is sent in which asks for that. For example, if the jury determines the damage did occur, and that the plaintiff's damage is in the amount of $100,000. Then they could determine that the league was 20% responsible, the kid was 5% responsible and the plaintiff himself, was 75% responsible. he would then only get $20k from the league and $5k from the kid. The kid's attorney could argue exactly what you suggest, that the coach is at least partially reaponsible for not properly coaching him.

No one likes attorneys until they need one.

I was being facetious when I suggested he sue the coach, of course - and it brings up another point...Don't most organized youth sports groups, especially those relying heavily on volunteer coaches, generally indemnify those volunteers against liability when an accident occurs?  If they didn't, I think you'd find it very difficult to recruit coaches...

Like, "Yeah, we want you to work a few hundred hours, for free. Oh, and by the way, if something goes wrong, you can get sued and lose a few million dollars. You're cool with that, right? Because, you know, you love the game, right?" 

This should be an open and shut case for the judge to throw out in the preliminary hearing that I would be tempted to represent my son if I was the Dad.  

Thanks Hog! I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. RJM, nicely played, very well put!

Not so fast. Why would it be dismissed? I assume you mean it would be dismissed as a result of a 12(b)(6) motion (or the California equivalent). Which means you're saying that no set of facts, if proven, would allow the court to grant the relief requested. A judge can't dismiss a case just because it sounds stupid.

An interview of the plaintiff was on our local news. He complained the kid or the family have not apologized. He said he would drop the suit if they apologize. This tells me it's not a serious lawsuit. I would be ticked if I was the lawyer used to get an apology. Time is money.

I would assume you are right. Of course that would only go as far as what happens within the proper discharge of your duties as a coach. Tell a pitcher to throw at a kid or something outside those proper duties and you'd be on your own. In this particular case, you'd be right, though.

Between individuals I can see that kind of childish action. However, I see it all the time in suits involving corporations where the plaintiff "just wanted an apology." No lawyer worth his salt is going to let his client in those cases apologize.

The "coach" is a sack.  No way did the helmet "sever" his Achilles.  What really happened is a kid hit a walk off HR and the coach celebrated by jumping, like everyone else.  Guess what severs the Achilles?  A 40+- year old man jumping.  I have seen it happen.  For us old folks, jumping and the Achilles don't mix very well.     

Also: The coach's surgery was six months after the game. Who knows what happened to his Achilles in the mean time.

Roothog has done a fine job in thread. The story went from an idiot coach that pretty much all parties agree should fall of the face of the earth to a legal argument complete with media biases (for the record Fox obviously fair and balanced MSNBC liberal trash who wouldn’t know the truth if was fed to them) , speculation of various cases and links to burnt vaginas…so I feel pretty comfortable with my comments that our system is broken, lawyers suck and the only thing the system is very good is generating billable hours….yes sir I feel very confident in that.

Unfortunately I have several lawyers that deal with on a weekly basis for contract law, employment law and various phases of law– as a matter of fact I don’t hate them, some I actually like personally but certainly not professionally– I just hate other peoples lawyers and the system in general.

My personal favorite is the guy I deal with the most is a good guy, every so often he asks me how my boys doing in baseball or gives me an update on his daughter playing D1 field hockey – I ask him every time if the meter is running? I am happy to discuss both of our kids for 10 or 15 minutes if he would like but not while paying 400 bucks an hour to do it…LOL the conversation usually ends quickly at that point!! F him trying to pad his hours with sales / relationship talk – that is on your time!!

nope, sadly as noted in previous post I deal with lawyers on a weekly basis, i understand them, the system and how to be a good client. I keep my damn mouth shut, follow directions and let them do the job that they have been trained to do...none of that changes the fact that the profession they chose is full of scum bags, in fact most of the Atty's i deal with agree the sytem is full slime and waste but it is the only system we have as of now.

In my opinion if you are a stand up guy/company, who does what they are obligated to do in a proffesional manner you will feel much like I do. Every time I have been in court we have won - because we try to fair and honest (like Fox)....as opposed to the most of the scumbags and their lawyers we have been up against

Also note that it was reported that he had a pre-existing condition. Now he claims that he just wanted to have his bills paid ($20,000) but the parents ignored him; stated that he was as surprised as anyone that his lawyer was sueing everyone possible. Still a j***off.

That sounds like a load. Now, it would be true that the lawyer might tell him that he needs to add any party to the suit that might possibly be legally liable, but he wouldn't do that without an ok from the client. My question is whether he tried to put in a claim with the league's insurance. If he did that and was turned down, this is usually how you get their attention.

old school, I think you lose all credibility when you argue that Fox is "fair and balanced."

The Fox news programs are fair and balanced. But most of what is on Fox News Network is not news. It's editorial shows. Its obvious those shows are to the right. There was a recent article that very little of what is on MS-NBC is actually news. It's editorial to the left. 

I rarely watch editorial television. I follow about fifty columnists on Twitter (majority lean right), Real Clear Politics (balanced) and the Politics section on Flipboard which leans hard left. I usually end up laughing or shaking my head at the salon.com articles.

But I feel versed in what both sides are thinking.

Politically I'm a constitutional libertarian. Personally I'm mostly conservative.

Edited to remove post. This isn't a place for political discussion.  Let's get back to one thong we all share a love for.

Back to baseball.

This clown was on our local news this morning.  Sobbing about how "good" the kid is.  Says he didn't know the lawyer was asking for so much money. 

Right, where do you think his fees come from.  If you are a real man, drop the suit. 

Roothog, I understand your arguments, and to an extent I agree with them. I don't necessarily think attorneys are the problem, per se. The problem is a proliferation of ridiculous laws that invite "valid" lawsuits, and an institutionally corrupt judicial system in many states that creates a far too cozy relationship between the plaintiff bar and the bench.

Also, the trial attorney lobby has a huge influence on getting these ridiculous laws passed as well, so the profession in my mind is to blame in that respect.

You name the area of law: employment law with "hostile work environment" claims, or environmental laws that invite litigation that is constantly used as a weapon to stop whatever activities the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) want to stop.

People are fed up with the legal profession because they are tired of this insiders game, and with judges who too often are just robed politicians.

So, you can explain and rationalize the process of how lawsuits are litigated, but the real problem is the proliferation of really bad law that invites the suits from the "suits."

Please, continue. Back up these arguments of corruption with something substantial.

Roothog, Why did you edit your last reply to Rob Kremer? Read the original in it's entirety & I've got to say it was much longer (& entertaining). I was going to jump in and have some fun with a portion but it's gone? Thanks to email I still got it and had to copy & paste a small portion below (with quotation marks inserted). All I can say is it's pretty damn cold this winter to make a global warming argument! Thanks for the laughs. Oh yeah, I am a skeptic on the subject.

"I'm also going to just guess that you don't believe that Global Warming is real and therefore any suits brought that claim environmental harm are inherently invalid."

HAHA he really wrote that?

It explains a lot!

Oh, and here is just ONE example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01...ges-and-lawyers.html

First of all, it is now "climate change." Get with the program.  Second, the earth has been warming since the ice age.  But I digress. 

As for the legal profession, I can comment as a recovering lawyer.  It's the 80/20 rule.  20% is good.  80% is BS.  I used to defend "hostile work environment" and other claims.  It was one lawyer after another throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. 

And especially in small communities, the Bar and the Bench are engaged in a racket like no other.  The feed off of each other.  They go to each others "fundraisers," weddings, and such.  Bet enough.  2 months till baseball season. 

The legal profession is alive and well in the United States. I usually find those railing against it were on the bad end of a good divorce lawyer.

above is a part of Roots post before edit

nobody will argue the legal profession is not live and well, that doesn't change any of the facts of the arguement. as a matter of fact one of the very few things that damn near every person from all sides of any debate can agree on is that lawyers and the courts in general are terrible. with the exception of the far left (which Mr. Root is obviously a part of)

You keep using the word "facts." I do not think it means what you think it means.