Rachel Paris was apparently hit by a chair thrown by Murray during the Stanley Cup Playoffs while the Ducks were playing the Red Wings in Detroit last May. She was involved in coordinating the broadcast, which meant that she was sitting close by Murray. She filed a lawsuit against Murray and his employer for her injuries.
The interesting thing about this lawsuit is not that it also names the Ducks as a defendant, but it is the legal theory asserted against the team. Count III of the lawsuit accuses the hockey team of negligence. The allegations made in the complaint are extreme. First, the plaintiff alleges that the Ducks had a duty to ensure that their employees were “reasonably and emotionally stable.” Second, they had a duty to ensure that their employees “did not have a propensity to violence” and that their employees “with a history of aggressive and violent behavior were properly supervised.” Next, they are alleged to have violated their duty to “have known of the propensity of violence” of Murray and to have known about “Bob Murray’s violent and aggressive nature.”
The assault and battery counts are not necessarily surprising. Even the intentional infliction of emotional distress count is not surprising. These are standard allegations in such a lawsuit. Bringing a negligence claim also is not a big shock, but the surprise is that the plaintiff has apparently set an enormous hurdle to prove negligence. She will have to prove Bob Murray’s emotional instability; show his “propensity of violence” and prove that he had a “history of aggressive and violent behavior.”
I do not know if Murray has a temper or a violent history. He spent 15 years playing for the Chicago Blackhawks, so we can assume he got into a few fights over the years, but that is not an apt comparison. As a lawyer I think it may have made more sense to allege simple negligence against Murray himself rather than making such extreme allegations against the team. Having to prove his history of violence will probably not be an easy task.
Daniel Duncan, who weighed about 340 pounds at the time of the injury, was at a Somerset Patriots game with his wife and son on August 5, 2006. He registered for one of the between-innings promotions and his name was called. At the registration area, team employees answered fan questions about the events, but Duncan chose not to ask anyone about the three-legged race, which the team called the “Monmouth Park Horse Race.”
Duncan thought he was participating in a race in which the fans carried flags around the field in a pretend “race.” That’s how the race used to be run. Instead, he was actually signed up for a three-legged race, which was the format since the start of the 2006 season.
When Duncan and the others got down to field level, a team staffer explained the race details and asked if there were any questions. Again, Duncan, apparently now aware that the race was not what he thought, did not ask questions and did not back out of participation. Obviously, he was not coerced into participating.
To make a long story short, Duncan slipped and hurt his foot after being paired with someone who was about half his weight. The grass was dry, although everyone acknowledged that the groundskeeper sprayed the field before the game. No one else fell.
The court’s analysis turned on the issue of the duty owed by the team to the fan, who was an “invitee” meaning he was invited onto the premises. In lay terms, it is similar to the duty you owe to someone who you invite into your house – you have to generally make sure that the house is safe from any foreseeable injuries. The court found that the team could not be liable because the plaintiff could not claim ignorance as to the risks:
Any risks inherent in a three-legged race were not something known to the proprietor but unknown to the participant. … Further, walking or running on grass is a common experience, and the risk of doing so with any particular kind of footwear is known equally by the participant and the property owner.
It sounds to me like the team did everything right. Had Duncan been chosen at random and if the race’s details were not explained, or if the ground had been soaked, the decision may have gone the other way.
On Tuesday, his lawsuit against the Jacksonville Times-Union newspaper came to an end when the judge granted summary judgment for the newspaper. The court found that there was no “actual malice” and that the offending column contained inactionable opinion statements by columnist Mike Freeman.
Daly had attacked three phrases in the column, which described his troubled personal life in unflattering terms. The objectionable portions included mention of domestic-violence accusations, comparison to basketball player Shawn Kemp because of his children from different women and discussion of Daly’s “Thug Life qualifications” and “rap sheet.” Freeman compared him to former Jaguar R. Jay Soward, who had a well-known drug problem. Carithers found the domestic-violence portion of the column was true. The comparisons to Kemp and Soward and the Thug Life statement weren’t actionable because they were the columnist’s opinion, the judge said.
Next, Daly allegedly Tweeted about the story, asking his fans to call and criticize the newspaper reporter.
Daly late Tuesday night posted the cell phone number of the Times-Union’s Garry Smits on two of his three Twitter posts, writing in one of them, “here’s the JERK who writes NON-NEWS article ... CALL & FLOOD his line & let’s tell him how we feel.” Smits said he received nearly 100 calls.
That is an interesting reaction to losing a lawsuit. Now the Golf Writers Association of American has asked the PGA Tour to suspend Daly for his conduct. Somehow, I doubt Daly would be too upset given his immense popularity despite his golf game, which has been middling at best since his last victory in 2004.
Oftentimes I am surprised that these athletes believe that all they need is an agent and the sponsorship money will automatically follow. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near that simple. As this article says, even Olympic medal winning athletes from Vancouver are going to struggle to find endorsements.
But the vast majority of Olympic athletes — even those who won medals — will have a harder time cashing in on their appearances at the Games. Winter sports like speedskating and bobsledding will all but disappear from the airwaves and, for many Americans, interest in them will not grow again until the next Winter Olympics in 2014.
If Olympic medal winners are struggling, that is an indicator that everyone else is strugglin as well. Companies are cutting back. Businesses are frugal with their dollars. While athletic sponsorships may be returning according to some published reports, it is still difficult to find money. I am not suggesting that it is impossible or that athletes should give up their dreams. Instead, I just want athletes to be realistic in their goals. Companies carefully scrutinize the athletes they endorse, and they have limited budgets. Unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as making on phone call to an agent, and then procuring sponsorships!
See if you can follow this saga of a potential problem with a sports agency. A major league ballplayer fires his agent. The cops are investigating a former employee of the agency for stealing money from the player. Somehow, a sports writer links this alleged theft with an entirely separate lawsuit filed against this sports agency.
Got all that? Me neither. Let’s see if we can sort out this scenario and figure out the preposterous implication made by this sports writer, a former lawyer who usually does outstanding work in my opinion. Last month, Angels first baseman Kendry Morales fired Hendricks Sports Management. Last week, the news was reported that an employee of Hendricks is being investigated by Coral Springs police for the disappearance of more than $300,000 from Morales’ bank account. Sounds like a fiasco, right? Clearly, the authorities will sort out whether money was stolen, and if it was, the responsible parties will face criminal charges.
The next part is what makes no sense. In December, heralded Cuban prospect Aroldis Chapman switched agents from a relative unknown to Hendricks. He then signed a 10-year, $30.25 million contract with the Cincinnati Reds. His former agent, the relatively unknown Athletes Premier International, sued Hendricks as a result of Chapman’s switch. Somehow, the writer links Chapman's choice to retain Hendricks with the alleged criminal actions by a Hendricks employee.
I cannot figure out what the alleged criminal activity by the apparently rogue employee has to do with Chapman’s switch. A Hendricks employee allegedly stole money from a client. A player switched from another agent to Hendricks, spurring a lawsuit from the old agent. How are these things an indication that a player should not sign with Hendricks. The Hendricks brothers have been around for decades so they do not need this blog to defend them, but it seems to me that their name is being unnecessarily dragged through the mud.
As a sports lawyer at a small firm, my clients often come to me to seek legal counsel about a perceived wrong. They are breathing fire and want someone to pay! They want to sue! As their lawyer, it is my job to ensure that they are considering all the ramifications of the lawsuit. Had Hanson approached me, the first thing I would have said to him was, “You know that you will never coach in the NFL again, right?”
Even if Hanson wins, he will be viewed as a troublemaker. No team will take a chance on hiring him. I am not necessarily saying that I would advise Hanson not to sue, but just that I would ensure that he fully comprehends everything that could result from the lawsuit. A person has to stand up for what he believes in, and if that means coming to the realization that his chosen profession is going to come to an end, then so be it. I have no problem with principle. I have no problem with people who face consequences from their lawsuits, win or lose. I just want to make sure that my clients fully grasp what they are getting themselves into.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to parse the specifics as to how the ban is interpreted the first time a player is cited for a violation. For instance, according to this article, the weapons are barred “while performing any services for MLB.” If a player gets in trouble for violating the ban, a good lawyer could have a field day with this vague definition.
For instance, what if the player is caught with a gun while on the way to or from a game? Is that part of a “service for MLB?” What if he is busted while at an event which is not sanctioned by the league or team, not at the team stadium, but is required by his contract, such as the team’s annual offseason fan fest, or an autograph signing? The ban should also spell out the penalties for violations.
Here is hoping that the MLB Players Association and league hammer out the details before anyone gets in trouble for violating the policy and takes the policy itself to task as a result.
As a hearings officer in New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights, she ruled in favor of a 12-year-old girl who wanted to play for a Hoboken Little League team.
“The institution of Little League is as American as the hot dog and apple pie,” she wrote in her ruling. “There is no reason why that part of Americana should be withheld from girls.”
Thanks to Judge Pressler, girls playing sanctioned Little League baseball is an everyday occurrence.
It’s not disrespectful to wonder if someone is at fault for Kumaritashvili’s death. Some have already been quoted as stating that “driver error” is to blame. However, might the fact that the post on which Kumaritashvili hit his head was padded after the accident be indicative of liability, considering that the organizers thought to add the seemingly self-evident safety measure only after a death?
To be honest, I do not know if the Canadian laws would favor a negligence lawsuit as they would if this tragedy occurred in the United States? Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder if this tragedy turns into a sports law story, as so many unfortunate deaths during competition end up in court.
This sounds just like the high school softball player suing in New York City, which we blogged about late last year.
The problem from the plaintiff’s perspective is how to prove damages. Based on the article, they may have no difficulty proving that they suffered out-of-pocket medical damages. They may not have difficulty proving that the city or soccer league was liable. Proving lost future earnings as a result of the son’s alleged professional soccer career having been destroyed will be an uphill battle, to say the least.
Comments such as the one made by the player’s father in the article are not helpful:
"If he decides to try out, (a college coach) could say, `No, sorry, you're injured,' " he said of his son, Mark, 18, a Greenwich High School senior and varsity soccer player. "Because of his injury he is at a disadvantage -- and it's not his fault."
Had there been some evidence of the player being at an elite level, he may have a solid chance at proving damages, but even that would be relatively unlikely to result in a large payout. Now the father is apparently acknowledging that the son may not even try to play in college. That is not a sound legal strategy for a plaintiff who is seeking to prove that he has lost his future earnings potential.
Investigators found insufficient evidence that Jackson, 26, attacked Supriya Harris of Mableton, Ga., in March 2009, Las Vegas police Officer Barbara Morgan said. "Our investigation is complete," said Morgan, a department spokeswoman. "I don't think the time passage was a factor here. We contacted the victim, the accused and witnesses. There's insufficient evidence to go forward with the case.
We can only go by what we are told from published reports, but one has to wonder about this. Jackson has been cleared but his name will forever be linked to the allegations.
This article makes the case that the NFL should allow telecasts of major games such as the Super Bowl in the participating team’s stadiums. The reason this is not done is as follows:
As the NFL has explained in the past, it prohibits mass out-of-home broadcasts of games because fans watching games in public places (as opposed to on their home televisions) do not count for the Nielsen ratings, so more fans watching outside of their homes means lower ratings, which means lower revenue for the NFL through it television deals. But the NFL has accounted for fans watching games on cell phones and laptops, so why not in stadiums?
Still, as the writer notes, wouldn’t it be a wonderful opportunity for fans to share a “once-in-a-lifetime experience” of “watching” the Super Bowl together? After all, being a football fan is about being a member of a community, and what better place to watch a game than with like-minded fans?
Prior to the 2008 season, the groups sought permission to perform organized cheers with the use of trumpets and other musical instruments. But Nippon Professional Baseball turned down the request in March 2008 following consultations with team representatives and police authorities.
On the surface, this sounds like a simple – if peculiar – ruling. The noise is too loud, so the fans are barred from making the noise. Further probing of the issue reveals an unusual twist: several fan club members are in the “Yakuza” which is the Japanese catch-all term for organized crime. Somehow, I find it hard to imagine the Mafia getting involved in baseball cheering here in the United States.
Cole was 22 years old when he was killed in a 2001 rollover accident shortly after the end of spring training. His sports lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the vehicle is prone to rolling over. The damages portion of the lawsuit could be groundbreaking.
So far, Jim Duquette, who was the Mets general manager at the time of Cole’s death, has testified. Former Mets outfielder and coach Mookie Wilson will also testify:
Their belief: Brian Cole should have been a major-league star. He probably would have come on the scene right with Jose Reyes in 2003.
All sports agents, coaches and general managers know that predicting the likelihood of success of a minor league baseball player is a risky proposition. Wilson will allegedly compare Cole to Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett. Cole’s former teammate, Heath Bell, predicted that Cole would earn $100 million in his major league career.
The outcome of this trial bears careful study, because athletes involved in lawsuits often allege that their future earnings were somehow taken away from them. Fortunately, these lawsuits do not usually involve a tragedy, but for one reason or another, an athlete has a viable case to argue that his career was cut short. Given the speculative nature of predicting future success in baseball – and in all pro sports – the manner in which Cole’s legal team proves his future earnings could impact the body of sports law for years to come.
Let's be honest and say that Justin Gatlin does not inspire much sympathy. The 2004 Olympic medal winner in the 100 meters and bronze medalist in the 200 was banned for doping. After his four-year doping ban expires on July 24, 2010, Gatlin has made it clear that he intends to get back into the sport. In fact, he is here in Florida training hard to make it happen.
What I found interesting about this article is that it makes it sound like the new Diamond League, track and field’s newest elite circuit, and several top European meets, are possibly acting in concert to keep Gatlin from competing.
Similarly, the article says that the USATF would not intervene on behalf of Gatlin if those meets do not accept him. While USATF should be commended for its stance against doping, one has to wonder about whether the sport’s governing body is preventing Gatlin from earning his living. In addition, the article states that USATF has required Gatlin to make appearances to speak to youth about his indiscretions.
After all that, and after he pays his penance, USATF is not only refusing to help him, but actively standing in his way? It is not a lifetime ban. Gatlin would be within his rights to wonder whether the USATF is hindering his comeback. USATF may or may not have legal liability, but if they are seen as conspiring with the Diamond League and other meets to keep Gatlin from competing, I would not be surprised to see an eventual lawsuit. The issue is that even though Gatlin is forever stained by his doping suspension, if he is cleared by the regulatory authorities, then other bodies may not be on solid legal ground by obstructing his efforts to compete.