Little League coach sues former player

[GoOKC1991]

Y! SPORTS

[kelroy55]

I saw that... amazing

[MadMonk]

I've coached my son's team for years and I can't tell you how many times I've been hit by baseballs, bats, etc. I've had my glasses broken and a bruised hand that I could hardly close into a fist for a few days. It comes with the territory. But, you know, I can kind of see his point - but only about suing the league and it's insurance carrier (presumably it has one), not the kid. I imagine he's tried to file an insurance claim for his injury and was denied, so it's time to sue for his loss. His attorney probably talked him into tacking on the pain and suffering as punitive measures too since he has to sue anyway.

Why he includes the kid, I don't really understand. Perhaps there are some oddball legal reasons for doing so that I'm unaware of.

I just watched the video and it appears that he tried to get only $20k from the league and/or the parents to cover the cost of his injuries, but was ignored and so he sued. He also claims that he wasn't even aware his attorney was suing for the $500k. This is a weird deal and I wonder if we are getting the whole story here. It seems like the league's insurance should have covered his injury.

[Midtowner]

He sued the kid because the kid is ultimately at fault. Really, it's a classic case of negligence here and the kid, who threw his helmet in such a way that it landed his coach in a wheelchair is maybe at fault. There's nothing frivolous about this as far as I can tell.

[hoya]

Assumption of risk.

[OKCisOK4me]

Gimme a break...

[BBatesokc]

He sued the kid because the kid is ultimately at fault. Really, it's a classic case of negligence here and the kid, who threw his helmet in such a way that it landed his coach in a wheelchair is maybe at fault. There's nothing frivolous about this as far as I can tell.

Ehhh, I'm on the fence so far on this. In general I don't quickly poo-poo negligence lawsuits because even minor injuries can result in major cost for medical bills and lost wages.

If the guy was hurt by the kid and wants his medical bills paid and compensation for real lost wages then I don't see the problem with it.

However, I've heard a couple of different versions of this ordeal and the family was on the TV last night and said the coach continued to coach another game, no ambulance was called and he didn't start limping until he saw the kids parents the next day. So, I have no idea if he was hurt or not.

I find the amount being sued for a bit ridiculous, but that amount doesn't mean that much and the courts will decide a proper amount - if any at all.

Family/league should have hired a PI from the moment they knew he wanted to collect. Gather evidence and see if he really is hurt or if he's milking it.

Honestly its hard to call this at this point.

Goes back to the McD's coffee incident many years ago. People automatically discredit it as a frivolous lawsuit when in reality it was anything but (unfortunately many people have zero interest in facts and reality).

[kevinpate]

Maybe folks would feel better about the litigation if the injury had been caused by a helmet tossed by a saddened auntie of a player from the losing team?

[RadicalModerate]

Maybe folks would feel better about the litigation if the injury had been caused by a helmet tossed by a saddened auntie of a player from the losing team?

This may be yet another example of "Trickle Down Theory" ending with "Bullying in the NFL" and beginning with peanut allergies, lawsuits involving.
(yet, I've been wrong before, and will be again =)

(perhaps the so-called "coach" should be metaphorically neutered by the courts and never be allowed to coach baseball again? and have his Eagle Scout badge removed? perhaps "wimpishness" should be "nipped in the bud"?)

[ctchandler]

Midtowner,
This isn't directed at you, but your post got me to thinking about this. I have problems with our litigious society but my problem with this is that I wonder if the action of the player was normal and the coach was perfectly happy until it hit close to home (his achilles tendon). A coach should take some responsibility for teaching young folks not to throw equipment, and limit wild celebrations in general. Since we/I don't know the whole story, it's also possible that the coach does try to teach good sportsmanship and this player was a slow learner (problem child). As for the lawsuit, what good does it do to sue a 14 year old boy for 500k?
C. T.

He sued the kid because the kid is ultimately at fault. Really, it's a classic case of negligence here and the kid, who threw his helmet in such a way that it landed his coach in a wheelchair is maybe at fault. There's nothing frivolous about this as far as I can tell.

[RadicalModerate]

Midtowner,
This isn't directed at you, but your post got me to thinking about this. I have problems with our litigious society but my problem with this is that I wonder if the action of the player was normal and the coach was perfectly happy until it hit close to home (his achilles tendon). A coach should take some responsibility for teaching young folks not to throw equipment, and limit wild celebrations in general. Since we/I don't know the whole story, it's also possible that the coach does try to teach good sportsmanship and this player was a slow learner (problem child). As for the lawsuit, what good does it do to sue a 14 year old boy for 500k?
C. T.

Could it be related to the "'Deep Pockets Picking' Theory of "(current American) Common Law" . . . (?) =)
(a.k.a. Ambulance Chaserous Vulgarous Legare?)

Without, of course, the forgiving grace of Professor Kingsfield:



(ans: of course it should. =)

[BBatesokc]

Midtowner,
This isn't directed at you, but your post got me to thinking about this. I have problems with our litigious society but my problem with this is that I wonder if the action of the player was normal and the coach was perfectly happy until it hit close to home (his achilles tendon). A coach should take some responsibility for teaching young folks not to throw equipment, and limit wild celebrations in general. Since we/I don't know the whole story, it's also possible that the coach does try to teach good sportsmanship and this player was a slow learner (problem child). As for the lawsuit, what good does it do to sue a 14 year old boy for 500k?
C. T.

I don't know that by not teaching kids to not 'celebrate' with the tossing of a helmet, bat or ball should make someone immune to seek legal remedy.

Sometimes things happen - even accidents - and unfortunately the real world often means people suffer loses due to those accidents. In the end the responsible party should be held accountable.

I knew a neighbor who was forced to sue another neighbor for an accident that happened on one of their properties. Neither took it personally, but both knew the medical bills needed to be paid so the property owner's insurance company should be sued. I thought they handled it very well and neither held grudge.

[RadicalModerate]

He sued the kid because the kid is ultimately at fault. Really, it's a classic case of negligence here and the kid, who threw his helmet in such a way that it landed his coach in a wheelchair is maybe at fault. There's nothing frivolous about this as far as I can tell.

It was an Act of God (force majure or whatever).
God invented the molecules arranged
to place all the players on the field of conflict.
The helmet, in question, thrown or unthrown
is not the answer.

[Dubya61]

In the end the responsible party should be held accountable.

I knew a neighbor who was forced to sue another neighbor for an accident that happened on one of their properties. Neither took it personally, but both knew the medical bills needed to be paid so the property owner's insurance company should be sued. I thought they handled it very well and neither held grudge.

Who is the responsible party, though? Maybe the coach was a clumsy oaf who could find a sharp corner in a padded cell. I don't know.
All the same, it's kind of sad that the kid's families don't have deep pockets that they're being sued for, otherwise, this would probably not be an issue.
It's kind of sad that the Little League organization won't step up and pay for the medical treatment that happened in the course of League operations.
It's kind of sad that your neighbors decided that an "accident" required suing the deep pockets of the insurance company.
It's kind of sad that when a woman spills hot coffee, she sues the restaurant because it was too hot (and yes, I know there's a little more to the story than a clumsy oaf who could find a sharp corner in a padded room -- she got severe burns on her lap because the coffee served to her was very hot, but who had the deeper pockets? the restaurant corporation, not the coffee maker manufacturer whose product delivered a product in line with industry standards -- did they give this woman several tests with beverage containers passed through a window to see if she had a higher than average spill rate and maybe she was the one at fault, regardless of the temperature of the beverage? I'm not advocating tort reform anymore, thanks to my education from Midtowner, kevinpate, et al, but aren't you JDs cringing just a little bit at this?).

[BBatesokc]

Who is the responsible party, though? Maybe the coach was a clumsy oaf who could find a sharp corner in a padded cell. I don't know.

It would help if you stuck to actual legal arguments.

It matters not how 'clumsy' the coach is if the fact remains the kid threw his helmet in a careless manner. Which would actually be a legal argument - and most likely the one they will forward.

it's kind of sad that the kid's families don't have deep pockets that they're being sued for,

Actually, what's sad and negligent is the fact the family owns a home and isn't responsible enough to have home owner's insurance.

It's kind of sad that the Little League organization won't step up and pay for the medical treatment that happened in the course of League operations.

Don't know the details, but I'd agree they should have submitted the claim to their insurance provider and let them decide.

It's kind of sad that your neighbors decided that an "accident" required suing the deep pockets of the insurance company.

Nothing 'sad' about it. One neighbor was injured on another's property. He suffered ambulance costs, medical bills not covered by his own insurance and rehabilitation.

What is commendable is that both of them live in reality and agreed there was shared liability. The victim's insurance paid what it was supposed to and that left the home owners to pay the balance. Very fair. You do realize that's what insurance if for right?

It's kind of sad that when a woman spills hot coffee, she sues the restaurant because it was too hot (and yes, I know there's a little more to the story than a clumsy oaf who could find a sharp corner in a padded room -- she got severe burns on her lap because the coffee served to her was very hot, but who had the deeper pockets? the restaurant corporation, not the coffee maker manufacturer whose product delivered a product in line with industry standards

What's really sad is that you don't seem to really know the facts behind this case.

Also, many states, like Oklahoma, require you to sue everyone and the courts decide who is going to pay and how much.

[ctchandler]

BBates,
Am I missing something? I don't believe my home owner's insurance would cover this. I might be wrong. I don't have an "Umbrella" policy, but I have high liability amounts, second only to umbrella policies.
C. T.

Actually, what's sad and negligent is the fact the family owns a home and isn't responsible enough to have home owner's insurance.

[kelroy55]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out and I seriously doubt the coach will get anything close to what he's asking. If it goes to trial they probably should skip a jury and let the judge decide.

[kevinpate]

Dubya61, in a word ... nope.

My own little battle wound from helping coach and cubbie days did not warrant litigation, but then, it was all my own doing (unlike the coach in the example here.)
I ended up giving a lesson on the dangers of not devoting full attention inside a batting cage. My bad through and through.

It's been nearly two decades and that thumb, it still ain't quite right.

[RadicalModerate]

Who is the responsible party, though? Maybe the coach was a clumsy oaf who could find a sharp corner in a padded cell. I don't know.

Yet . . . What if the alleged "coach" was a dexterous--or even ambidextrous--oaf wouldn't that make a difference?
And how could we determine the relative scale thereofmentioned, above?
Case Law? Common Law? Political Appointees up to, and including, SCOTUS?
That remains a mystery to be solved.

Professor Kingsfield: You say you "Think Like A Lawyer" . . . any response?
(sorry, yer honor, that could be conscrewed as leading the witless)

(btw: there is an actual difference between "Authority" "Responsibility" and "Accountability". anyone with a little bit of common sense knows that. people with a lot of common sense don't need to be reminded. =)

Say! Maybe the alleged "coach" could change his name to Mary Poppins and could have an Umbrella Policy grandfathered in . . . (?!)
They could make a movie about it called: "Protecting Mr. Wuss".

[BBatesokc]

BBates,
Am I missing something? I don't believe my home owner's insurance would cover this. I might be wrong. I don't have an "Umbrella" policy, but I have high liability amounts, second only to umbrella policies.
C. T.

It is possible, just depends on the policy, the law and the claim.

[mugofbeer]

The video doesnt appear to be available anymore but no matter what, unless the kid intentionally aimed the helmet at the coach or willfully maimed him, it was an accepted by product of being involved in sports. As much as some feeble minded do gooders would like to take competition out of sports, competition is emotional and a big win can cause celebrations. The kids celebrated and the coach was accidently hurt. I'm sorry but if he had no insurance of his own or if an injury would keep him from work, he shouldn't be coaching or should accept the risk. For Gods sake he went for punitive damages and costs that likely exceed the real ones.

[Dubya61]

It would help if you stuck to actual legal arguments.

OK, then, what are the actual legal arguments?

if the fact remains the kid threw his helmet in a careless manner.

What is a "careless manner" in which to throw a helmet when celebrating a Little League victory?

Actually, what's sad and negligent is the fact the family owns a home and isn't responsible enough to have home owner's insurance.

Yeah, let's get Secretary Sibelius and her IRS friends involved in this one and set standards for home owners insurance, to include injuries that didn't occur on the home owner's property. More PPACA anyone?
Maybe its sad that the coach was negligent in getting some sort of professional insurance. Maybe he's the bogeyman in this scenario.

What's really sad is that you don't seem to really know the facts behind this case.

I know more than the average joe, I'm sure. What's sad is that you assume you know more. I can google just like you can, and see that this is the poster boy for those that want tort reform AND the poster boy for those that are against tort reform because both sides can ignore the facts that don't fit their opinion. What facts do you know that I don't seem to know?

Dubya61, in a word ... nope.

My own little battle wound from helping coach and cubbie days did not warrant litigation, but then, it was all my own doing (unlike the coach in the example here.)
I ended up giving a lesson on the dangers of not devoting full attention inside a batting cage. My bad through and through.

It's been nearly two decades and that thumb, it still ain't quite right.

In a punctuation mark ... ?
nope, what? I'm not saying that people who get injured are the ones to blame, but, hey, there wasn't a chronology of events that day that I've seen, and for all we know, little Johnny could have carefully set the helmet down on a baseline, returned to his team for winning jubilant celebration, and the coach tripped over the helmet, thus ripping his Achilles tendon. I'd understand the lawsuit if the kid had a history of throwing his helmet at the coach, but that wasn't presented as the reality, either.

[Just the facts]

He sued the kid because the kid is ultimately at fault. Really, it's a classic case of negligence here and the kid, who threw his helmet in such a way that it landed his coach in a wheelchair is maybe at fault. There's nothing frivolous about this as far as I can tell.

Your kids are going to be real popular on the T-ball circuit.

I remember the good ole' days when accidents happened. Now everything has to have a 'root' fault so blame can be laid and money exchanged. I am reminded of the line in Hot Fuzz where Officer Angel instructs his partner not use the word 'accident' to describe an automobile 'collision' as it implies there is no one to blame.

I guess if Obamacare has any saving grace it is that people like this will have to carry their own health insurance (I wonder if not having insurance would by default exclude you from getting to sue someone else insurance).

[BBatesokc]

Your kids are going to be real popular on the T-ball circuit.

I remember the good ole' days when accidents happened. Now everything has to have a 'root' fault so blame can be laid and money exchanged. I am reminded of the line in Hot Fuzz where Officer Angle instructs his partner not use the word 'accident' to describe an automobile 'collision' as it implies there is no one to blame.

So, if the plaintiff can show $20,000 worth of real money out of pocket damages that he didn't cause you'd still be of the mind that 'accidents happen' and the coach should foot the bill?

Where exactly do we draw the line from "oops its an accident, pay for the damage yourself because obviously I didn't do it on purpose" and taking responsibility for one's own actions - whether intentional or not?

I remember when I borrowed a friends very large sheet metal delivery truck with a lift so I could move to the Regency downtown. I was involved in an accident. None of it was my fault, the other car ran a stop sign and I hit it.

The owner of the truck had insurance (he also owned the company and had tons of money), but he also had a $500 deductible. Even though the accident wasn't my fault, I knew the party responsible had no insurance and no money. I borrowed the truck so ultimately I was responsible (though probably not legally). I paid the $500 without being asked. Fortunately the deductible wasn't more because I didn't have more to give - that said, had he felt it necessary to sue me and the other driver and let the courts figure out who owed the money I would not have felt he did anything wrong. Accidents happen, but ultimately someone has to pay the bill in many instances.

In the baseball incident, I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone would think the coach is wholly responsible for out of pocket medical expenses in this case if his claims are valid (I am hearing he had a prior injury to the same area - so I'm still not convinced he has a valid claim).

[Just the facts]

Where exactly do we draw the line from "oops its an accident, pay for the damage yourself because obviously I didn't do it on purpose" and taking responsibility for one's own actions - whether intentional or not?

Intent to harm.

I am not sure about his league but when my kids played we all had to sign waivers saying if we got hurt before, during, or after any game or team function we were on our own for any expenses.