tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76975902208173096162024-03-13T12:02:24.663-07:00 Baseball Law Reporter Documenting the Convergence of America's Two Greatest National Pastimes: Baseball and LitigationAuthorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-58266886286007823402015-09-10T12:55:00.000-07:002015-09-10T12:56:33.015-07:00Man Shown Napping on ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” Broadcast has $10 Million Lawsuit Thrown Out by Judge<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i>Andrew
Robert Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, ESPN </i><st1:state><st1:place><i>New
York</i></st1:place></st1:state><i>, et al.</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of The Bronx, No. 303630 (2014)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1FDrcWTSczs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1FDrcWTSczs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><br /></b>
<b>What
Happened?</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Andrew
Robert Rector attended the <st1:date day="13" month="4" year="2014">April 13,
2014</st1:date> game between the Red Sox and Yankees at Yankee Stadium. In the top of the fourth inning, Rector was
shown on the “Sunday Night Baseball” telecast while Dan Shulman and John Kruk
quipped about the fact that he appeared to be sleeping. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
his complaint, Rector alleged that the comments made by Schulman and Kruk
amounted to an “unending verbal crusade against the napping plaintiff.” Specifically, Rector claimed that the
broadcast team used the words “stupor,” “fatty,” “unintelligent” and “stupid”
in describing him. He further asserted
they falsely claimed, among other things, that Rector was a “fatty cow that
needed two seats at all time[s] and represent (sic) symbol of failure” and “a
confused disgusted (sic) and socially bankrupt individual.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Rector
was further angered that the scene was later posted to MLB.com and YouTube by Major
League Baseball Advanced Media under the title, “<a href="http://m.mlb.com/video/v32071463/bosnyy-fan-sleeps-in-stands-during-game-vs-red-sox">Tired Fan Naps in the Stands</a>.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As a
result, Rector brought a lawsuit against Major League Baseball Advanced Media,
ESPN New York, the New York Yankees, Dan Shulman and John Kruk seeking $10
million in damages for defamation of character and intentional infliction of
emotional distress claiming he suffered mental anguish, loss of future income
and loss of earning capacity as a result of the occurrence. He even went so far as to claim that
“insurance companies now consider me a high risk.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
commentary by Shulman and Kruk that pertained to Rector was made during a span
of less than 90 seconds in which plaintiff was on camera for a total of 31
seconds. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
actual exchange between Shulman and Kruk follows: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>:
This guy’s oblivious to how good it is.
Join the millions of subscribers, maybe even this guy. Watch every out of market game live in true
HD on over 400 devices. Visit MLB.tv for
details.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: Sometimes you have to turn it off, get some
sleep. This is not the place you come to
sleep. Tell you what though, how
comfortable it that? Probably won’t have
any neck problems tomorrow.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>: I mean, is that guy to his left his buddy,
who’s just letting him sleep, or is he here alone? What’s the deal with this guy?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: Maybe that’s his buddy and he likes him a lot
better when he’s asleep.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>: I think the other guy’s really more concerned
with the food and the game.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: Chicken fingers are a special item at the
ballpark. Why share? Get ‘em while he’s asleep so he won’t ask for
one.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>: We gotta see how long this guy’s out for.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: You don’t think he can sleep, it’s only the
fourth inning, you don’t think he can sleep through?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>: Did he sleep through the [Carlos] Beltran
homer? I mean 45,000 people stand up and
cheer and he sleeps through.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: You think it’d be tough to, but he seemed
comfortable. It didn’t look like he just
started to sleep.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Shulman</u>: Not a cousin, not a relative?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<u>Kruk</u>: No, I don’t think so, but you never
know. I mean, I didn’t get a good look
at him cause of the head tilt. But I mean physically he could be, yeah.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As
you can see, this portion of the broadcast did not appear to support Rector’s allegations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to toss
the case because plaintiff had not properly stated a cause of action. The defendants attached a copy of the entire broadcast
as an exhibit to the motion and argued that literally none of the allegations
made by plaintiff were contained in any exchange between Shulman and Kruk for
the entirely of the telecast.
Furthermore, the defense claimed that any comments made about Rector
were “loose, figurative or hyperbolic statements” and otherwise harmless. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who
Won?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
defendants prevailed. In her opinion
issued on <st1:date day="17" month="8" year="2015">August 17, 2015</st1:date>,
Judge Julia I. Rodriguez granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the case
in its entirety. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Why?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
court found that the recording of the telecast conclusively established “that
none of the defendants made any of the statements attributed to them in the
complaint.” Additionally, the court held
that the statements made by Shulman and Kruk were not defamatory or
actionable. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As
to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, plaintiff had to
prove that defendants’ conduct was “so outrageous of character, and so extreme
in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded
as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Not surprisingly, the court held that nothing
attributed to the defendants rose to the level of extreme and outrageous
conduct.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As a
result, plaintiff’s entire case was dismissed as to all defendants. </div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-7340206991898469442014-09-09T12:09:00.002-07:002014-09-10T11:14:46.280-07:00Jose Offerman Ordered to Pay $940,000 to Catcher John Nathans for On-Field Assault with Bat<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EFyvihSy9Io/VA77hM_t6_I/AAAAAAAABQk/rgbPhuAlmpk/s1600/BL.offerman%2Battack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EFyvihSy9Io/VA77hM_t6_I/AAAAAAAABQk/rgbPhuAlmpk/s1600/BL.offerman%2Battack.jpg" height="263" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Matt Beech (L), Jose Offerman (M), Johnathan Nathan (R) Photo credit: Christian Abraham</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Nathans v. Offerman, </i>3:09-cv-00256-WWE, 922 F.Supp.2d 271, (D. Conn., 2013)<br />
<br />
<b>What happened?</b></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jose Offerman was an infielder who played for 15 years in the Major Leagues, last playing for the Mets in 2005. At his peak, Offerman signed a free agent deal with the Red Sox in 1998 that paid him $26 million over 4 years. Although Offerman was an All-Star in 1999, his offensive production started to wane in 2000 and he was eventually traded away near the end of the Boston contract. By 2006, Offerman was playing for the Mets' AAA affiliate in Norfolk and, after hitting just .238 in 97 games, was granted free agency at the conclusion of the season. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unable to find a Major League job for the 2007 season, he signed on to play for the Long Island Ducks in the independent Atlantic League, joining a team that included Pete Rose, Jr. and former Major League All-Stars Carl Everett and Edgardo Alfonso. Offerman enjoyed a resurgent season feasting on minor league pitching, posting a .335/.425/.502 line with 8 home runs through 69 games. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On August 14, 2007, Offerman was in the lead-off spot for the Ducks, who were visiting the Bridgeport Bluefish of Connecticut. Offerman promptly hit Matt Beech's first pitch of the game over the wall for a home run. Offerman then came to the plate again in the second inning. After a swinging strike, Beech's next pitch plunked Offerman on his left calf. Instead of taking first base, however, Offerman charged the mound with his bat in hand.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Beech stood his ground, Bluefish catcher Johnathan Nathans chased Offerman towards the middle of the infield and was allegedly struck in the head by Offerman's bat. Offerman was ejected from the game and arrested later that night on two counts of Assault in the Second Degree. He was suspended by the league and never played for the Ducks again. Offerman was placed on two years probation and the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nathans, who had played as high as AA ball in the Red Sox organization several years earlier, tried to stay in the game but was ultimately removed from the game and taken for medical care. <br />
<br />
In his lawsuit, Nathans claimed that Offerman and the Long Island Ducks were guilty of (1) assault and battery, (2) negligence, and (3) reckless assault and battery. Nathans alleged a number of resulting injuries from the attack, including a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, vertigo, headaches, vestibular dysfunction, inner ear damage and post traumatic stress disorder, among others.<br />
<br />
<b>Motion for Summary Judgment</b><br />
<br />
The Ducks filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the court dismiss them as a defendant because Offerman's conduct was outside of the scope and course of his employment with the team; Offerman could not be held responsible for the injuries because Nathans was a co-participant in a contact sport; and, that even if held liable for the acts of Offerman, the Ducks could not be held responsible for punitive damages. <br />
<br />
With regard to the assertion that Offerman was not within the course and scope of his employment, the court denied the motion, holding that "[a] master does not escape liability merely because his servant loses his temper while he is conducting his master's business." The court believed it was "not unexpected for a batter to charge the mound after being hit by a pitch." While it was "unusual" for the batter to bring along the bat, <a href="http://baseballlawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/10/dodgers-catcher-john-roseboro-sues-juan.html">but not unprecedented</a>, this act was not such a clear-cut digression from his work duties that the court could dismiss the case. They felt it was a better question for the jury to answer.<br />
<br />
As to the co-participant theory, the court granted the motion as to the negligence counts because mere negligence was not enough under Connecticut law to create liability between co-participants in a team contact sport. However, liability could be lie with reckless or intentional conduct; therefore, the motion was denied as to the assault and battery counts.<br />
<br />
Finally, the court found that the Ducks could not be found responsible for any punitive damages assessed on the part of their employee Offerman.<br />
<br />
<b>Who won?</b><br />
<b><br />
</b>Johnathan Nathans.<br />
<br />
This case proceeded to trial and the jury was tasked with determining whether Johnathan Nathans had proven that Jose Offerman committed an assault and/or committed a battery upon which damages could be awarded to Nathans. Additionally, the jury was asked whether Offerman's conduct was committed within the course and scope of his employment with the ball club.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the jury found that Offerman had assaulted Nathans but that Nathans had not proven a battery. They awarded Nathans a total of $940,000 in damages. <br />
<br />
The jury additionally found that Offerman was <i>not</i> acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the occurrence and in doing so, exonerated the Long Island Ducks of any wrongdoing.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sVV3JwI5nl4/VA9DmK1ot1I/AAAAAAAABQw/QLCfMcur6lY/s1600/BL.offerman%2Bjudgment%2Bamended.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sVV3JwI5nl4/VA9DmK1ot1I/AAAAAAAABQw/QLCfMcur6lY/s1600/BL.offerman%2Bjudgment%2Bamended.jpg" height="640" width="492" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Amended judgment</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What's next?</b></div>
</div>
<br />
Both Nathans and Offerman have filed post-trial motions asking the court for a new trial. <br />
<br />
Nathans believes the jury incorrectly found that Offerman was not in the course of his employment at the time of the incident and that the trial court failed to give the jury proper instructions on the agency relationship.<br />
<br />
Offerman asks for a new trial due to the inconsistencies in the jury's findings and verdict. He argues that because he was not found to be responsible for the battery, which requires actual physical contact, he should not be responsible for damages that clearly had to have resulted from being struck by the bat. [Being found responsible for the assault would only require that Nathans was put in a reasonable fear of harm from an Offerman attack and no actual physical contact would be necessary to award damages.] Also, Offerman asked that the court to find that he <i>was</i> acting in the course and scope of his employment, such that the Ducks would share in the responsibility of payment of the verdict.<br />
<br />
Updates will be posted when the court rules on these post-trial notions.<br />
<br />
<b>What about Jonathan Nathans since the attack?</b><br />
<br />
Nathans never returned to professional baseball and instead pursued a law degree. He is currently a practicing attorney in Maine.<br />
<br />
<b>What about Jose Offerman since the attack?</b><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Offerman played two more seasons in the Mexican League before retiring as a player. As the manager in the Dominican Republic Winter League, Offerman got into a heated discussion with the umpires during a game on January 16, 2010. He punched one of the umpires and as a result was banned from the league for life. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Wu4-p_OjzfY?rel=0" width="480"></iframe><br /></div>
<br /></div>
The lifetime ban was eventually overturned and he has since managed again in the Dominican winter league and for the Veracruz Red Eagles in the Mexican League.<br />
<br />Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-55584344137487586162014-09-03T06:04:00.001-07:002014-09-05T04:58:58.472-07:00New York Court Declines to Label Wiffle Ball Bat a Lethal Weapon<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ac_rdsvOmNA/VAcQGkP6pWI/AAAAAAAABQE/T060tLJL7Y4/s1600/BL.Wiffle%2Bwood%2Bbat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ac_rdsvOmNA/VAcQGkP6pWI/AAAAAAAABQE/T060tLJL7Y4/s1600/BL.Wiffle%2Bwood%2Bbat.jpg" height="56" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vintage Wooden Wiffle Ball Bat - Photo Credit: www.wiffleballusa.com </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>Schuh v. Hickis</i>, 37 Misc.2d 477, 236 N.Y.S.2d 214 (N.Y.Sup., 1962)</div>
<br />
<b>What Happened?</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sandra Tasyn (14) was visiting relatives in New Hyde Park, New York on June 1, 1958. She and her cousin went to the defendant Hickis' home, about a block away from her cousin's house, and began to play a Wiffle Ball game in his backyard. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The plaintiff, Stephen Schuh (7), came over to the yard and joined in the game. While Schuh was waiting for his turn to bat, Tasyn swung at the ball and the bat slipped from her hands, hitting Schuh in the face. (Wiffle Ball bats were made of wood from 1955-1972!) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Stephen Schuh's father sued on his son's behalf to recover for medical expenses and loss of services. Schuh claimed that Charles Hickis was responsible because he allowed the children to play in his yard and that Sandra Tasyn's parents should have followed her around and supervised her play. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Both Hickis and the Tasyn's moved for summary judgement, asking the court to dismiss the case.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Who Won?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment, dismissing the case. The court also denied Schuh's motion to add Sandra Tasyn, who had since turned 18, as a defendant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Why?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As to the Tasyn's, parents are not <i>per se </i>liable for the torts of their children, except under certain circumstances. For example, if they were to have furnished Sandra with a gun, they could have been held liable for their own negligence in doing so. In this case, however, the Tasyn's had nothing to do with the offending Wiffle bat and even if they did, "such ordinary instruments of play in the hands of a 14-year-old could scarcely be considered a lethal agency."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As to Hickis, the court found there was nothing wrong with the physical condition of the yard on which to predicate responsibility for this occurrence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-57206017146573411272014-08-26T09:40:00.002-07:002014-08-26T10:01:56.769-07:00Indiana Supreme Court Finds for RailCats but Declines to Adopt Baseball Rule in Fan's Foul Ball Injury Case<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fx8hQWKatyg/U_yEGEb_dUI/AAAAAAAABN4/of4cGSh4Qdw/s1600/BL.Railcats%2Bstadium%2Bphoto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fx8hQWKatyg/U_yEGEb_dUI/AAAAAAAABN4/of4cGSh4Qdw/s1600/BL.Railcats%2Bstadium%2Bphoto.jpg" height="452" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gary Southshore RailCats Home Ballpark</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>Southshore Baseball, LLC v. Juanita DeJesus</i>, No. 45S03-1308-CT-531 (Ind., 2014)<br />
<br />
<b>What Happened?</b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On May 23, 2009, Juanita DeJesus attended the Gary Southshore RailCat's opening day game at The U.S. Steel Steelyard in Gary, Indiana. On this warm, clear night, the RailCats were set to battle their Northern League foes, the Fargo-Moorhead RedHawks. Ms. DeJesus and her fiance attended the game, meeting their friend and her niece at their seats in section 111, which were just beyond the protective netting behind home plate along the first base line. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Second baseman Carlo Cota, the second batter of the game, hit a pop-up foul ball back into the stands. Ms. DeJesus saw Cota make contact with the ball but as she looked up to find it, the ball struck her in the face. As a result, she sustained several fractured facial bones and was left with permanent blindness in her left eye.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dAwWM2cvoxY/U_y83XuChuI/AAAAAAAABOI/i5dbQiBtjaA/s1600/BL.Railcats%2Bstadium%2Bphoto%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dAwWM2cvoxY/U_y83XuChuI/AAAAAAAABOI/i5dbQiBtjaA/s1600/BL.Railcats%2Bstadium%2Bphoto%2B2.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ms. DeJesus filed a lawsuit against the RailCats claiming that they "were negligent in failing to make [the] premises reasonably safe for [her], a business invitee." Specifically, she claimed that the RailCats should have extended the netting further down the line to have protected her seat from foul balls. She even hired an expert who opined that the netting should have protected <i>all </i>of the seating sections. <br />
<br />
The RailCats countered that the netting was adequate and that plaintiff had not produced any evidence, other than the claims of their expert, that the netting was defective. Additionally, the defendants argued that there was no evidence that plaintiff failed to appreciate the danger of foul balls entering the stands or that being struck by a foul ball was an unreasonable risk of harm. Finally, they urged the Indiana Supreme Court to adopt the "Baseball Rule" in which the RailCats would have been absolved of liability for a foul ball injury like this because they provided screening behind home plate sufficient to meet the ordinary demand for those protected seats.<br />
<br />
Based on these defenses, the defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's case due to her inability to prove the negligence or premises liability claims. <br />
<br />
<b>Who Won?</b><br />
<br />
Although the RailCats were not able to beat the RedHawks on that May 23rd evening, losing 3-2 in 10 innings, they ultimately prevailed in this case.<br />
<br />
Initially, the trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment but allowed defendants to pursue an immediate appeal.<br />
<br />
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the trial court and returned the case with instructions to grant the defendants' summary judgment motion in its entirety. They specifically adopted the majority rule that a baseball stadium operator has only the duty to screen the most dangerous areas behind home plate. <br />
<br />
The case was thereafter accepted by the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court declined to adopt the Baseball Rule but affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals having dismissed Ms. DeJesus' case.<br />
<br />
<b>Why?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The Court cited this passage from the 1911 case of <i>Charles Carr v. State</i> in which plaintiff had been convicted of playing baseball on Sunday, in violation of a Draconian Indiana law which prohibited "rioting, hunting, fishing, quarreling, at common labor or engaged in his usual avocation" on Sundays. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That baseball has come to be the one great American outdoor game; that it is played during the summer season throughout the land by boy and youth and man, beginner, amateur, and professional, in country village, town, and city; that it is played out of doors in seasonable weather; that it engages the mind alike of the participant and the spectator in an entertaining way; that it trains the body to vigor and activity and to a degree the mind to alertness; that the playing of a game requires but a fraction of a half day; that it cannot be successfully played at night; that those who witness it find in it for the time a relief mentally and physically from the stress of the intense life we as a people lead - are facts known of all men, and of which the courts and Legislatures cannot be wholly ignorant. <i>Carr v. State</i>, 175 Ind. 241, 93 N.E. 1071 (Ind., 1911).</blockquote>
Despite the inclusion of this romantic passage and an acknowledgement that over a dozen other states had adopted the Baseball Rule, the Court was not convinced that baseball was worthy of its own special rule of liability. The Court ultimately concluded that the enactment of the Baseball Rule in Indiana was better left the judgment of the legislature, recognizing that Arizona, Colorado, Illinois and New Jersey had codified the Baseball Rule.<br />
<br />
With regard to the premises liability claims, the Court held that the warnings regarding the potential danger of foul balls printed on the tickets, posted on signs and announced over the public address system were adequate such that the RailCats would have had no reason to believe that DeJesus "would not realize the danger or that she would not protect herself against it." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
As to the negligence claims made by plaintiff, the Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish that she had relied on the netting to protect her from the danger presented by foul balls. Specifically, she had testified in her deposition that she had seen foul balls enter the stands before at RailCats games and even admitted that she knew that a foul ball could come her way while she was sitting in her seat that day. </div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-76635021130530821142014-08-21T05:58:00.002-07:002014-08-21T06:01:26.164-07:00Toronto Blue Jays Oppose Creighton University Trademark Application <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gFnZANhUi3A/U_XkV-va6NI/AAAAAAAABMw/Wstyc3muVF4/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.tor%2Btshirt%2Blogo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gFnZANhUi3A/U_XkV-va6NI/AAAAAAAABMw/Wstyc3muVF4/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.tor%2Btshirt%2Blogo.jpg" height="376" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership v. Creighton University</i>, In re Application Serial No. <a href="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91217791&pty=OPP&eno=1">86067719</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Toronto Blue Jays have filed a Notice of Opposition with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in an effort to prevent the approval of trademark protection for the new logo being offered on sports apparel by Omaha's Creighton University. Creighton has filed for trademark protection for a stylized blue jay head design to be used on "Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, [and] athletic uniforms." This is the Creighton logo, from a t-shirt currently available on their athletic department <a href="http://shop.gocreighton.com/">web site</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mVe0adktbD4/U_XtiXnOPAI/AAAAAAAABNI/kxcscswA7Vc/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.creighton%2Btshirt%2Bcloseup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mVe0adktbD4/U_XtiXnOPAI/AAAAAAAABNI/kxcscswA7Vc/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.creighton%2Btshirt%2Bcloseup.jpg" height="292" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For their part, the Toronto Blue Jays have claimed that the team has continually used very similar logo designs from well before the Creighton application date of September 18, 2013 as shown here:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R1b6lm0cVAs/U_XkWDh5shI/AAAAAAAABMs/4gd14CHXk7Y/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.toronto%2Blogos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R1b6lm0cVAs/U_XkWDh5shI/AAAAAAAABMs/4gd14CHXk7Y/s1600/BL.bluejays%2Bcreighton%2Blawsuit.toronto%2Blogos.jpg" height="532" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result of the alleged similarity, the Toronto Blue Jays claim Creighton has caused confusion and deceived the public that the Creighton goods were approved or endorsed by Toronto's Major League Baseball team. They further claim to be damaged by causing a likelihood of dilution "by blurring the distinctive quality" of the Toronto marks. The Toronto Blue Jays request that the Creighton application be denied.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The basic analysis of trademark infringement is the "likelihood of confusion." Accordingly, the Toronto Blue Jays do not need to show <i>actual</i> confusion. The specific inquiries that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will make include: the similarity of the marks with respect to appearance and impression, the similarity of the goods or services, the similarity of "trade channels", the strength of the competing marks, actual confusion, length of time of concurrent use without actual confusion and the variety of goods with which each of the marks is used. <i>In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co</i>. (1973). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The decision of the board will be posted after it has been issued. What do you think is going to happen?</div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-16693624845053088732014-07-29T06:04:00.000-07:002014-07-29T06:04:04.682-07:00The Supreme Court of Missouri Declares that Getting Hit by a Hot Dog is Not an Inherent Risk of Attending a Royals Baseball Game<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z5qXQoQED7s/U9ebjplOBaI/AAAAAAAABKY/GLA_hQ932sk/s1600/BL.Royals+Scoreboard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z5qXQoQED7s/U9ebjplOBaI/AAAAAAAABKY/GLA_hQ932sk/s1600/BL.Royals+Scoreboard.jpg" height="640" width="417" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.,</i> SC93214 (Mo., 2014)<br />
<i>Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., </i>WD73984, WD74040<i> </i>(<st1:state>Mo.</st1:state>
App. 2013)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<st1:place><st1:city>Circuit Court of Jackson County</st1:city>,
<st1:state>Missouri</st1:state></st1:place>, 1016-CV04073</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>What happened?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Royals mascot, Sluggerrr, is a large lion played by <st1:place><st1:placename>John</st1:placename>
<st1:placename>Byron</st1:placename> <st1:placename>Shores</st1:placename></st1:place>. Since 2000, Shores has been famous for
launching hotdogs into the crowd from an air cannon and tossing them by hand in entertaining ways, including over his shoulder and behind his back.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
On <st1:date day="8" month="9" year="2009">September 8, 2009</st1:date>, John Coomer
attended the Kansas City Royals and Detroit Tigers game at Kauffman Stadium with
his father. Instead of sitting in their
ticketed seats, Mr. Coomer and his father found seats approximately six rows
behind the dugout on the third base side.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Mr. Shores
performed the “Hotdog Launch” promotion between the third and fourth innings of
this game and after finishing with the air gun, began manually tossing
foil-wrapped hotdogs into the stands from his position atop the third base
dugout. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Mr.
Shores attempted to throw a hotdog behind his back in the direction of Mr.
Coomer, just as Mr. Coomer turned to look at the scoreboard. The hotdog reportedly hit Mr. Coomer in the face with
enough force to knock off his hat, but he did not report the incident to the Royals at that time. He also attended the game the next day and noticed no issues with his vision. <br />
<br />
Two
days after the occurrence, Mr. Coomer first began to notice vision problems. He was ultimately diagnosed with a detached
retina and cataracts in his eye - allegedly as a result of the errant toss. He underwent two surgeries and claimed a
permanent vision loss in the eye, despite an artificial lens implant. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The case
was tried in front of a Jackson County jury in <st1:date day="7" month="3" year="2011">March, 2011</st1:date>. The
jury deliberated and returned its verdict on <st1:date day="9" month="3" year="2011">March 9, 2011</st1:date>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who
won?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Royals. The jury found that Mr. Coomer
was 100% at fault for the occurrence and awarded him no damages for his
injuries. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.5in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>The appeal<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: -.5in; margin-right: -.5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Plaintiff
appealed judgment on the verdict claiming that the court erred in instructing
the jury on the various assumption of risk defenses claimed by the Royals. The plaintiff specifically argued that a
“mascot throwing hot dogs directly at [fans] is not an inherent or unavoidable
risk of the game of baseball.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Royals countered that Mr. Coomer, who admittedly had been to 175 previous games
at Royals Stadium and had previously seen the Hotdog Launch, assumed the risk
of being hit by the hotdog because the promotion was a customary part of the
game and Mr. Coomer consented to the risk by attending the game.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who
won the appeal? <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Mr.
Coomer. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
appellate court noted that everyone who attends a baseball game assumes the
risk of being hit by a ball because the risk is inherent to the game; however,
the court agreed with the plaintiff that the trial court erred in submitting
the assumption of risk defense to the jury because, “the risks created by a
mascot throwing promotional items do not arise from the inherent nature of a
baseball game.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
primary assumption of risk instruction given by the trial court informed the
jury that this was a complete bar to recovery.
Because the primary assumption of risk instruction should not have been
given, judgment was reversed. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Supreme
Court<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The Royals sought
to have the case appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The case was
accepted and oral arguments proceeded on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><st1:date day="11" month="9" year="2013"><st1:date day="11" month="9" year="2013">September
11, 2013</st1:date></st1:date>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The Supreme Court
agreed with the lower court, finding that the trial court erred in
allowing the jury to determine whether being injured by the hotdog toss was an
inherent risk of watching a Royals home game, instead finding that the judge
should have decided the issue. Specifically and importantly, "The risk of being
injured by Sluggerrr's hotdog toss...is not an unavoidable part of watching the
Royals play baseball." <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The Court
reiterated that the Royals likely would not have been responsible for Mr.
Coomer's injury if it had been caused by a foul ball or bat leaving the field
and cited with approval prior decisions supporting the "Baseball
Rule" as it was applied in <st1:state><st1:place>Missouri</st1:place></st1:state>. They went so far as to declare
that being injured by the hotdog toss was not even an inherent risk of the hotdog
toss. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start;">
<b>What's Next for
Mr. Coomer?</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span> </div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: start;">
The trial court's
judgment for the Royals was vacated and remanded, meaning that the results of
the first trial were voided and the case was returned to the trial court for
another trial or, perhaps, a potential settlement.</div>
</div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-75539487884286374422014-07-22T06:51:00.002-07:002014-07-22T06:51:56.144-07:00Cubs File Lawsuit Against Unofficial Mascot Billy the Cub<i>Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Weier, et al</i>., 14-cv-05507, Northern District of Illinois<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tik4DCMb5rg/U85i3Q0zi4I/AAAAAAAABKA/hiLpHtOKDwg/s1600/BL.billycub+photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tik4DCMb5rg/U85i3Q0zi4I/AAAAAAAABKA/hiLpHtOKDwg/s320/BL.billycub+photo.jpg" height="640" width="500" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photograph of Billy the Cub, from Exhibit D of the Complaint</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you have been to Wrigley Field in the past several years, you may have encountered one of several large bears donning a Cubs helmet and wearing a #78 jersey wandering around outside the park and posing for pictures. Not to be confused with the Cubs new official mascot, Clark, Billy the Cub is actually a for-profit venture that has no affiliation with the team.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZX39x6bP_Q8/U85i8IdX33I/AAAAAAAABKI/8Mvh1hRKg2s/s1600/CCI.clarkwgn.cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZX39x6bP_Q8/U85i8IdX33I/AAAAAAAABKI/8Mvh1hRKg2s/s320/CCI.clarkwgn.cropped.jpg" height="400" width="356" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Clark, the Cubs official mascot introduced in 2014</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Although the owner of the costumes has reportedly been rebuffed by the Cubs in his efforts to become the sanctioned mascot and has been the subject of cease and desist requests, the Billy the Cub costumers are still seen seeking tips around the neighborhood on game days. The Cubs have finally had enough, however, and it was likely this video showing the man inside the costume getting in a fistfight that was the tipping point in the Cubs initiating legal action.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bsslMuz6RoE?rel=0" width="480"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not surprisingly, the Cubs do not want to be associated with with these unsanctioned "mascots" and they allege in their complaint that the defendants "interact with Cubs fans by posing for photos or videos with the fans and engaging in other mascot-like activities (such as dancing with fans), and then seek to hustle those same fans for 'fees' or 'tips." In addition to the explicit reference to the bar fight depicted in the YouTube video shown above, the Cubs further allege that the defendants have made profane and derogatory remarks to fans, including racial slurs, often in relation to the amount of the tip.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Cubs specifically complain of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. As for damages, they seek the permanent injunction of further Billy the Cub activities, a disgorgement of all profits, the delivery of costumes for destruction, punitive damages and attorneys fees.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The Lanham Act states in pertinent part:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(a) (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or <b>services</b>,...uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(A)<b> is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation,<br />connection, or association of such person with another person</b>, or as to the origin,<br />sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another<br />person...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be<br />damaged by such act. §43 (15 U.S.C. §1125).</blockquote>
It appears that the Cubs are on good legal footing here and at the very least, the threat of having to reimburse the Cubs for their legal fees would seem to be a pretty strong incentive for the defendants to discontinue their Billy the Cub operations, even if they have insurance coverage that will provide them with a defense. <br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if they have as much fight in them in the defense of this lawsuit as was seen at the bar. </div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-84202637685052362782014-02-11T06:12:00.001-08:002014-02-11T06:12:29.731-08:00Albert Pujols Drops PED Allegation Lawsuit Against Jack Clark<div style="text-align: justify;">
Albert Pujols has reportedly agreed to dismiss the 2013 <a href="http://baseballlawreporter.blogspot.com/2013/10/former-cardinals-slugger-albert-pujols.html">defamation lawsuit</a> he filed against former slugger Jack Clark in advance of a hearing on Clark's motion to dismiss scheduled for February 20, 2014. Terms of the settlement, if any, have not been disclosed. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Jack Clark has issued the following statement:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"I would like to address Albert Pujols' pending defamation lawsuit and re-confirm that I have no knowledge whatsoever that Mr. Pujols has ever used illegal or banned PEDs. I publicly retract my statements that Albert Pujols used such substances. During a heated discussion on air, I misspoke and for that I sincerely apologize."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And Pujols has responded, "I have accepted Jack Clark's retraction and apology to resolve my lawsuit against him and clear my name."</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-66019143928750795612013-12-23T08:07:00.001-08:002013-12-23T08:08:34.610-08:00Lawyer Tony LaRussa Inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Most people know <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/larusto01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Tony LaRussa</a></strong> as a Major League manager. It is also widely known that he got his law degree, anticipating that his life in baseball was to be short-lived. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What is not as well-known is Tony LaRussa, the Chicago Cub. LaRussa made his major league debut as an 18 year old in 1963 with the then Kansas City Athletics. He played second base and hit .250 in 53 plate appearances. He showed a keen eye and posted an on base percentage nearly one hundred points higher at .346. It took LaRussa another four seasons, however, to work his way back to the major league club, appearing in 13 games for the Oakland Athletics from 1968-1969. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In 1970, Tony LaRussa was able to crack the lineup more regularly, appearing in 52 games and hitting .198 in 123 plate appearances. He again showed a good eye, posting an on base percentage over one hundred points higher at .301. After going hitless in 8 at bats for the 1971 A’s, LaRussa’s contract was purchased by Atlanta, where he hit a robust .286 and had a sparkling .375 on base average in 8 plate appearances with the Braves. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
LaRussa played in the Braves’ system in 1972 but did not make an appearance with the big club in <st1:city>Atlanta</st1:city> that season. On <st1:date day="20" month="10" year="1972">October 20, 1972</st1:date> the Braves traded him to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for right-handed pitcher <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/phoebto01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Tom Phoebus</a></strong>, who had gone 3-3 with 6 saves and a 3.78 ERA in 37 appearances with the Cubs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In 1973, LaRussa made the team out of spring training and was on the bench for the April 6th contest as the Expos faced the Cubs in front of 40,273 at Wrigley Field. The Expos struck first, scoring 2 runs off of <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jenkife01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Fergie Jenkins</a></strong> in the top of the 1st inning. The Cubs scored a run in the bottom of the 1st off of <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/torremi01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Mike Torrez</a></strong> and the score remained 2-1 as the Cubs came to bat in the bottom of the 9th. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Cubs first baseman <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pepitjo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Joe Pepitone</a></strong> led off the inning with a single to centerfield, despite a five-man infield, and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jamescl01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Cleo James</a></strong> was called to run for him. <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santoro01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Ron Santo</a></strong> then reached on an error on a ball hit to Expos second baseman <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/huntro01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Ron Hunt</a></strong>. Cubs manager <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lockmwh01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Whitey Lockman</a></strong> turned to LaRussa and pointed a finger in his direction. “Run for Santo” was all he said. Tony LaRussa grabbed his helmet and trotted out to first base to spell Santo.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beckegl01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Glenn Beckert</a></strong> drew a base on balls and the Cubs were in business with the bases loaded and nobody out. <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hundlra01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Randy Hundley</a></strong> walked and Jones scored to tie the game at 2-2. But <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kessido01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Don Kessinger</a></strong> promptly fouled out and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=hickmji02,hickmji01&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Jim Hickman</a></strong> followed with a strikeout. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Cubs were down to their final out and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mondari01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Rick Monday</a></strong> came to the plate, hoping to break the tie and avoid extra innings. Tony LaRussa danced off of third. Monday worked the count against fireballer <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=marshmi02,marshmi01&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Mike Marshall</a></strong> and eventually coaxed a walk! LaRussa jogged home and triumphantly stomped on home plate, having scored the winning run in his Cubs debut.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And there you have the entirety of Tony LaRussa’s career with the Cubs. He never appeared in another major league game for the Cubs after he scored the winning run on Opening Day, 1973. LaRussa was sent down to the Cubs’ AA affiliate in <st1:city>Wichita</st1:city> and put together a nice season, hitting .314/.403./.393 with 5 home runs and 75 RBIs in 106 games for the Aeros.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
After another four seasons in the minors, LaRussa retired as a player at the end of the 1977 season, never having reached the major leagues again. The very next year, he was hired to manage the White Sox AA team in <st1:city>Knoxville</st1:city>. By August, 1979 he was called upon to manage the Chicago White Sox when his 1973 Cubs teammate Don Kessinger resigned from the post. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
LaRussa managed consecutively in the major leagues through his retirement in 2011. He is just one of four men listed on the Cubs all-time roster as a pinch runner and only one of two, the other being <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kerrme01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Mel Kerr</a></strong>, to have scored a run in his only pinch running appearance.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
He finished his managerial career third on the all-time list with 2851 wins and led the 1989 A’s and 2006 and 2011 Cardinals to World Series titles. He is now a Hall of Famer, inducted with fellow managers <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/coxbo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Bobby Cox</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=torrejo01,torre-000joe&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Joe Torre</a></strong>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-35307080479942717342013-12-15T12:11:00.000-08:002014-07-22T06:56:58.740-07:00Comedian Danny Thomas’ Investment Group Fails in Bid to Buy Chicago White Sox<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">Epton v. CBC Corp</i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">., 48 Ill.App.2d 274, 197 N.E.2d 727 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., 1964)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happened?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span> </b></span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In early April 1961, the investment group with a controlling interest in the Chicago White Sox offered to sell its share to a consortium organized by Chicago attorney Bernard Epton that included well-known comedian Danny Thomas. The agreed upon sale price was $4.8 million (about $37.5 million today.)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The White Sox stock, comprising a 54% share, was owned by CBC Corporation, controlled by Bill Veeck, Hall of Famer <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/greenha01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Hank Greenberg</a></strong> and Arthur Allyn, Jr. The group had purchased this share on March 10, 1959 from White Sox founder Charles Comiskey’s daughter, Dorothy, for $2.7 million (about $21.8 million today.)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Upon the sale to CBC, the White Sox enjoyed immediate success and captured the 1959 American League pennant. After falling to the Los Angeles Dodgers in the World Series; however, the White Sox finished 10 games back in 1960. By early 1961, the Bill Veeck group saw an opportunity to make a quick, handsome profit and agreed to sell their 54% interest in the American Baseball League Club of Chicago to the Danny Thomas group.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On May 31, 1961, a handshake deal was made with the Thomas group having a one-week option for $1000 to purchase the shares of stock for the agreed upon price. At the conclusion of this meeting, Veeck reportedly told Epton, "O.K., Bernie, *** we have a deal. I am glad that it’s taken care of. I know you will do a good job." Greenburg and Allyn are also alleged to have shaken hands with Epton and congratulated him on the deal. The written option agreement had not been signed, however.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As agreed, plaintiff delivered the check for $1000 to the seller’s attorney on the morning of June 2, 1961. That afternoon, however, Epton visited Allyn’s office and was told that Greenberg was being difficult. Allyn assured Epton that they would get the option agreement signed so that the sale could be formally announced on June 5, 1961. For unknown reasons, however, Hank Greenberg was having second thoughts.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On June 3, 1961, Epton offered a certified check in the amount of $100,000 to show their group’s good faith and ability to perform. Veeck refused the check, telling Epton that it was not necessary. </span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-evBkguSL9pE/UrDHjqtbXwI/AAAAAAAAAG4/XopDwI0Htes/s1600/BL.Epton.pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-evBkguSL9pE/UrDHjqtbXwI/AAAAAAAAAG4/XopDwI0Htes/s320/BL.Epton.pic.jpg" height="400" width="257" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bernard Epton with Certified Check</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On June 5, 1961, CBC returned the $1000 check that they had accepted but not deposited, informing the Thomas group that Greenberg was not willing to sign the option agreement and that the CBC group was not going to be able to sell the stock to them.</span></div>
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a result of the deal having fallen through, Epton filed suit seeking that the court compel CBC to sell them the team under the terms of the option agreement or alternatively, award them damages in the amount of $700,000 (about $5.47 million today), claiming that the stock they agreed to purchase for $4.8 million was actually worth $5.5 million. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The option agreement at issue provided that the Thomas group was to give written notice of their intent to exercise the purchase option and deliver a check in the amount of $99,000 to CBC. The Thomas group had not done either but claimed that their oral notice was sufficient and that they had substantially complied by offering the $100,000 check that Bill Veeck said was not necessary.</span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So who won?</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
</div>
</b><div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court ruled in favor of the CBC group, refusing to force the sale or award any monetary damages to the Thomas group.</span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</b><div align="JUSTIFY">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">T</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">he court found that even though Epton was on notice that Greenberg was refusing to go along with the option, "plaintiff still did not give written notice or pay the required $99,000; rather, he insisted that defendants sign the option agreement, thereby evidencing his uncertainty as to whether there was in fact any binding agreement." Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Epton’s lawsuit.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happened after this lawsuit was decided?</span><br />
</b><div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Interestingly, the stock owned by Veeck and Greenberg was sold to Arthur Allyn, Jr. and his brother, John Allyn and they owned the team together until John bought out Arthur in 1969. In 1975 John Allyn sold the team back to Bill Veeck.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bernard Epton served in the Illinois House of Representatives from 1969 through 1983. He was unsuccessful in his 1983 bid for mayor of Chicago, losing a close race to Harold Washington.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Danny Thomas founded the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in 1962. It may never be known if the White Sox deal falling through sped up his efforts to bring the children's hospital to fruition, but Danny Thomas' vision has certainly been responsible for saving the lives of thousands of children since its inception. </span></div>
</span>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-44856094339910889812013-12-14T13:39:00.000-08:002013-12-16T06:46:18.448-08:00Over Fifty Years Before Jackie Robinson Broke Major League Baseball’s Color Barrier, an Integrated Minor League Team Battled for the Rights to Future Hall of Fame Black Ballplayer Frank Grant<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: windowtext;">Harrisburg Base-Ball Club v. Athletic Association</span></i><span style="color: windowtext;">, 1890 WL 2997, Pa.Com.Pl. (1890)<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who was <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grantfr99.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Frank Grant</a></strong>?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The plaintiff in this case, better known as the Cuban Giants, was admitted to Eastern Interstate League as the representative from York, Pennsylvania and played as the Monarchs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The manager of the defendant Harrisburg Ponies, James Farrington, was none too pleased that the talented Giants were welcomed into the league and countered by luring second baseman Frank Grant and catcher Clarence Williams to sign on with the Ponies, despite the fact that each had already signed contracts to play for the Giants/Monarchs for the 1890 season.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Grant was held in such high regard that he received a hero’s welcome in Harrisburg and was nicknamed “The Colored Dunlap” (an obviously insensitive moniker nowadays) due to his favorable comparisons to white second baseman <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dunlafr01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Fred Dunlap</a></strong>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Harrisburg Morning Patriot</i>, Grant was the “most famous colored ballplayer in the business” and “when he appeared on the field a great shout went up from the immense crowd to receive him, in recognition of which he politely raised his cap.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What was the basis for the lawsuit?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Giants claimed that the loss of Grant, one of their “most expert players” would cause irreparable harm to their profitability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, the Giants claimed that they had expended great sums of money to erect “buildings, fences and accommodations for the public” with the expectation that Grant, “a player of great reputation,” would draw a substantially larger paid attendance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent Grant from playing for the Harrisburg Ponies in 1890.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Importantly, however, the Giants could not ask the court to compel Grant to play for them in 1890 because such a remedy was not available at law.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So who won?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court ruled in favor of the Ponies and Frank Grant was allowed to play the 1890 season for Harrisburg.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court found that because they did not have the power to force Grant to play for the Giants in 1890, Grant’s playing for the Ponies was not the direct cause of the damages to the Giants. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, the Harrisburg Ponies were not at fault because the Giants would have sustained the same claimed losses even if Grant had played a team other than the ponies.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Additionally, the court found that Grant’s contract with the Giants was not fully enforceable because it lacked mutuality, in that only the Giants had the right to compel specific performance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The provision that the court singled out gave the club the right to cancel the contract “at any time” if it appeared that Grant was “not fulfilling his agreements to the best of his ability.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happened after the case was decided?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Grant enjoyed a productive season for the Ponies during their time in the Eastern Interstate League, hitting .333, slugging .488 and stealing 22 bases in 59 games.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the middle of July, an opportunity arose for the Ponies to join a higher minor league when the Jersey City Jerseys of the Atlantic Association folded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem for the Ponies was that the American Association did not have any black players.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Teams such as the Washington Senators and Baltimore Orioles initially refused to play the Ponies if Grant was in the lineup.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regardless, Harrisburg was admitted and took over Jersey City’s record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite the prejudice Grant faced on and off the field, he hit .332 with 13 doubles in 47 American Association games with the Ponies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2006, Frank Grant was inducted into the Hall of Fame by the Negro League Committee.</span>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-48212466229567833922013-12-10T12:18:00.001-08:002013-12-12T11:20:53.164-08:00James E. Bennett - Inventor of Baseball's Most Ridiculous Patented Equipment<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<strong><span lang="EN">What is a patent?</span></strong><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN">Long ago, governments recognized that protecting inventors’ efforts was essential to encourage technological advancement but realized that limiting the time in which an inventor had the exclusive right to market their invention served the greater good by preventing the inventor from controlling a useful product forever. Patents were first granted in Europe in the late 1400s and the patent system was first enacted in the United States in 1790. To date, there have been thousands baseball-related patents issued covering everything from game equipment to methods of compressing game broadcasts. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<strong><span lang="EN" style="font-weight: normal;">In the United States, a patent is an intellectual property right granted by the government to an inventor that “excludes others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted. Currently, a utility patent is enforceable for 20 years from the date on which the application was submitted, assuming that periodic maintenance fees are paid as scheduled.<o:p></o:p></span></strong></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<strong><span lang="EN">What can be patented?<o:p></o:p></span></strong></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<strong><span lang="EN" style="font-weight: normal;">A utility patent will be granted for a machine, process, article of manufacture, composition of matter (or any improvement to an existing machine, process, article of manufacture, composition of matter) as long as it is “new, nonobvious and useful.” There are certain things that cannot be patented, however, such as laws of nature, abstract ideas and inventions that are morally offensive or “not useful.”<o:p></o:p></span></strong></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The “non useful” component is somewhat interesting in that the patent examiner is charged only with making a decision whether an invention will function as expected and otherwise has a “useful purpose.” As you will see below, “useful” does not always mean that the invention will be marketable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>So how did James Bennett hope to change baseball?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
While it is not clear whether inventor James E. Bennett of <st1:place><st1:city>Momence</st1:city>, <st1:state>Illinois</st1:state></st1:place> is the same James Bennett who played for the Sharon Ironmongers in the 1895 Iron and Oil League, it seems clear that he did not exert any forethought as to whether his inventions would be practical when used under baseball game conditions. Either that or he just really hated catching a ball with the existing baseball glove technology available at the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
By the early 1900s, baseball gloves had undergone constant improvement. Starting with George Rawlings in 1885, (Pat. No. 325,968) protective gloves were becoming more acceptable to protect fielders’ hands. In 1891, <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/deckeha01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Harry Decker</a></strong> added a thick pad to the front of the glove (Pat. No. 450,355) and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reachbo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Bob Reach</a></strong> added an inflatable chamber (Pat. No. 450,717). By 1895 Elroy Rogers had designed the classic “pillow-style” catcher’s mitt (Pat. No. 528,343) that would be used with little change until <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hundlra01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Randy Hundley</a></strong> pioneered the one-handed catching technique in the 1960s using a hinged catcher’s mitt. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Regardless of the existence of the baseball glove technology in use at the time, James Bennett tried to think outside the box by eliminating the catcher’s mitt all together and, instead, attaching that box to the catcher. Here is 1904’s "Base Ball Catcher" in all of its ill-conceived glory:<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-grFq0fVLzSw/Uqmy2mDHOJI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/QfyZ6Dejm7I/s1600/Pat.Baseball+Catcher+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-grFq0fVLzSw/Uqmy2mDHOJI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/QfyZ6Dejm7I/s640/Pat.Baseball+Catcher+1.jpg" width="492" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Front View</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rAKiyXAxaMg/UqmzR6QZ9XI/AAAAAAAAAGY/8E1-CgHRWPI/s1600/Pat.Baseball+Catcher+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rAKiyXAxaMg/UqmzR6QZ9XI/AAAAAAAAAGY/8E1-CgHRWPI/s640/Pat.Baseball+Catcher+2.jpg" width="494" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Side View</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Bennett apparently envisioned the catcher squatting behind home plate acting as a passive target for the pitcher’s offerings and designed this contraption to accept the pitched ball into the cage such that it would strike the padding and drop through a chute into the catcher’s hand so it could be returned to the mound. As you can see, however, the device would have significant shortcomings should the catcher have to attempt to throw out a would-be base stealer, be required to catch the ball for a play at the plate, attempt to block a wild pitch or especially to field his position on a ball put in play in front of the plate. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But Bennett was not finished yet! In 1905, he patented a two-handed "Base Ball Glove" with an oversized pocket to trap the ball:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lSilJBLT96g/Uqm0XLYguoI/AAAAAAAAAGk/io7_qhtvPJk/s1600/Pat.Two+Handed+Glove.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lSilJBLT96g/Uqm0XLYguoI/AAAAAAAAAGk/io7_qhtvPJk/s640/Pat.Two+Handed+Glove.jpg" width="494" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Front and Back View</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Bennett claims that this poorly imagined glove is easy to use because the fingers on the player’s throwing hand were specially designed to “permit the easy and quick removal of that hand to grasp and throw the ball.” Just as with the "Base Ball Catcher," however, this design does not offer the player much in the way of a catching radius. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>So what happened to James E. Bennett’s inventions?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;">As of 1918, he was still looking for investors, according to this advertisement he placed in the August and October issues of “</span><st1:place style="text-align: justify;">Forest</st1:place><span style="text-align: justify;"> and Stream” magazine.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=b91JAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA507&ots=4GfVkhzGYQ&dq=%22james%20e.%20bennett%22%20momence&pg=PA619&ci=599%2C482%2C360%2C181&source=bookclip" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="200" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=b91JAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA619&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U0KZusiJHlHvhIs40LTilAJksMgqw&ci=599%2C482%2C360%2C181&edge=0" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-57557681117615287482013-11-22T06:14:00.000-08:002013-11-22T06:14:17.223-08:00Houston Astros Ownership Files Fraud Lawsuit against Drayton McLane over Botched TV Deal<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i>Houston Baseball Partners, LLC v. McLane Champions, et al.</i>, No. 201370769, Harris County, Texas</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
wrangling over future broadcasts of Houston Astros games has finally come to
blows as the Houston Baseball Partners, LLC ownership group, led by Jim Crane,
has filed a lawsuit in Harris County, Texas alleging misrepresentation and
fraud. Specifically, the petition
alleges that the Houston Regional Sports Network, of which plaintiff purchased
a 40 percent stake, was fraudulently overvalued and that the subscription rates
previously being sold by defendants were rejected by Time Warner, Direct TV and
AT&T. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
“Ultimately,
fans of the Houston Astros have been injured because Defendants’
misrepresentations leave plaintiff with an impossible choice: either accept the
broken network as is, and deprive thousands of fans the ability to watch
Houston Astros games on their televisions, or distribute the games at market
rates and take massive losses out of the Houston Astros player payroll –
thereby dooming the franchise for years to come”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The
Astros had formed the network in 2003, in conjunction with the Houston Rockets
ownership, and Comcast later purchased an equity stake in the network in
2010. Comcast agreed to pay certain
monthly fees based on the number of subscribers in a given month for each of
several distinct geographic zones. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Plaintiff
claims that Comcast eventually agreed to an “inflated” Zone 1 base rate;
however, Comcast retained a “most favored nation” right such that they could
reduce their rates if affiliate distributors were not willing to contract at
the premium Zone 1 rate. These
“inflated” rates were thereafter incorporated into the Comcast business plan
that plaintiff relied upon in negotiating the purchase of the ball club and
broadcast network shares in 2011.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In
order to prove their case, Houston Baseball Partners will need to prove that
the (1) inflated Zone 1 base rates overstated the projected profitability and
ultimate value of the Astros’ stake in the network, (2) that these
representations were materially false and misleading when they were made, (3)
the defendants knew or should have known that the representations were false
and misleading, (4) that the false or misleading representations were made with
the intent of inducing plaintiff to execute the purchase agreement, (5) that
plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment, and (6) that
plaintiff suffered damages as a result.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Fraud
is difficult to prove and initially, it would appear that plaintiff will have some
difficulty establishing that the inflated rates were misleading if they were
being honored at the time of the purchase.
Presumably, the most favored nation status would have been examined
during the due diligence process and the risks that accompanied such a provision
would likely have been accounted for in the purchase price.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
What
is not clear at this point is the correlation between the Astros’ on field
performance and the number of subscribers that pay to access the broadcast,
especially in light of the dismal performance of the team in 2013. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<iframe height="480" src="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzNT2wpuk5RsVDQ1ODJhS0xFcEk/preview" width="640"></iframe>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-80690807688370940892013-11-13T11:44:00.000-08:002013-11-13T11:44:59.124-08:00Fan Injured in Promotional Horse Race Loses in Lawsuit Against Atlantic League Ball Club<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><st1:city><st1:place><i>Duncan</i></st1:place></st1:city><i> v. </i><st1:city><st1:place><i>Somerset</i></st1:place></st1:city><i> Patriots Baseball Club</i>, No. A-4279-08T3 (N.J. Super., 2010)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What Happened?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The Somerset Patriots are an independent minor league baseball team established in 1998 and based in <st1:place><st1:city>Bridgewater</st1:city>, <st1:state>New Jersey</st1:state></st1:place>. The Patriots have enjoyed great success, winning the Atlantic League championship in 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2009 under the guidance of manager and former star reliever <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lylesp01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Sparky Lyle</a></strong>. (In fact, the Patriots’ mustachioed mascot, Sparkee, was named after Lyle.)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Daniel Duncan attended the Patriots home game on <st1:date day="5" month="8" year="2006">August 5, 2006</st1:date>, a team whose roster featured the nephews of Hall of Famers <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Roberto Clemente</a></strong> (<strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemeed02.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Edgard Clemente</a></strong>) and <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sandbry01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Ryne Sandberg</a></strong> (<strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sandbja01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Jared Sandberg</a></strong>.) </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><st1:city>Duncan</st1:city> entered a random drawing to participate in several promotional events during the game and was selected to take part in the “Monmouth Park Horse Race.” For this event, sponsored by the famous <st1:city>ocean-side</st1:city> racetrack of the same name, Duncan and a partner were given a horse head to carry (not the Godfather kind) and a bandanna to tie their legs together. The race, itself, was to take place on the field, starting at home plate and ending at first base.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">As <st1:city>Duncan</st1:city> went to take his first step, however, he lost his balance and fell, injuring his knee. He claimed initially that he slipped on wet grass and did not allege any other defect that would have caused him to fall; however, he later testified at his deposition that he did not actually notice whether the grass was wet. All of the other eyewitnesses testified the grass was dry. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the Patriots were not required to warn <st1:city>Duncan</st1:city> regarding the risks inherent in the three-legged race and that there was no evidence that the field was defective or had been improperly maintained. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>The Appeal<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Plaintiff appealed claiming that there was a question of fact as to whether the field was defective and whether the Patriots should have warned him about the dangers he might encounter while taking part in the promotional race.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Who Won the Appeal?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The <st1:city>Somerset</st1:city> Patriots. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the injury lawsuit.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Why? <o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The reviewing court found that <st1:city>Duncan</st1:city> was aware of the hazards inherent in a three-legged race, having just participated in one with his son at a Boy Scout camp-out. Furthermore they stated that, “walking and 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.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">They felt further that the ball club could have provided warnings but this was balanced by the fact that <st1:city>Duncan</st1:city> voluntarily agreed to compete in the race. Ultimately, the court held that the Patriots had no duty to warn plaintiff about the potential risks involved in the three-legged race.<o:p></o:p></div>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-9044409433062674442013-11-11T11:38:00.000-08:002014-08-22T06:28:50.714-07:00Revenue Sharing Deal Cubs Struck with Rooftop Owners Holding Up Wrigley Field Renovations<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">During the 2013 baseball season, the City of </span><st1:city style="text-align: justify;">Chicago</st1:city><span style="text-align: justify;"> approved a $500 million plan to renovate Wrigley Field and build an adjacent office building and hotel.</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">Included in the renovation plan is the proposed construction of a large video board behind the left field bleachers and signs advertising Budweiser behind the right field bleachers.</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">The Cubs have delayed the start of this project, however, because the owners of the rooftop businesses across from the ballpark have threatened to file a lawsuit against the Cubs because the proposed signage will obstruct the views of the field from their respective rooftop businesses.</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Rooftop Litigation History<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<st1:city><st1:place><i>Detroit</i></st1:place></st1:city><i> Base-Ball Club v. Deppert</i>, 61 <st1:state>Mich.</st1:state> 63, 27 N.W. 856 (<st1:state>Mich.</st1:state>, 1886)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Disputes over neighbors viewing ballgames are nothing new. In 1885, John Deppert, Jr. constructed a rooftop stand on his barn that overlooked <st1:place><st1:placename>Recreation</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>Park</st1:placetype></st1:place>, home to the National League’s Detroit Wolverines, future Hall of Famer <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/thompsa01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Sam Thompson</a></strong> and a rotation featuring the likes of men named <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wiedmst01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Stump Wiedman</a></strong>, <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/getzich01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Pretzels Getzien</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/baldwla01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Lady Baldwin</a></strong>. The Wolverines claimed that they had to pay $3000 per month for rent and that the 50 cent admission fees, helped to offset this cost. They were thereby “annoyed” by Deppert charging people, between 25 to 100 per game, to watch the games from his property and asked the court to forever ban Deppert from using his property in this manner. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WKbqX6RNoAg/UoExVcPRMRI/AAAAAAAAAFo/d31U9zOXFqk/s1600/Det_Rec_Park.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WKbqX6RNoAg/UoExVcPRMRI/AAAAAAAAAFo/d31U9zOXFqk/s1600/Det_Rec_Park.jpg" height="343" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Recreation Park - Home of the Detroit Wolverines</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:237.75pt;
height:127.5pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:UsersMHSPC3~1AppDataLocalTempmsohtml1 clip_image001.jpg"
o:href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Det_Rec_Park.JPG"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Deppert countered that the ballgames had ruined the quiet enjoyment of his premises, that ballplayers often trespassed on his land in pursuit of the ball and that he often had to call the police to “quell fights and brawls of the roughs who assemble there to witness the games.” He further claimed that his viewing stand had passed the city’s building inspection and that he had the legal right to charge admission and sell refreshments. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The trial court dismissed the Wolverines case and the ball club appealed. The Supreme Court of Michigan agreed that the Wolverines had no right to control the use of the adjoining property; therefore, Deppert was within his rights to erect a stand on his barn roof and sell refreshments to fans that wanted to watch the game. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Deppert’s rooftop customers would otherwise have paid the fees to enter <st1:place><st1:placename>Recreation</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>Park</st1:placetype></st1:place>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Similarly, the rooftops of the buildings across the street from <st1:place><st1:placename>Shibe</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> were frequently filled with fans wanting a view of the Philadelphia Athletics game action. While never happy about the situation, <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mackco01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Connie Mack</a></strong> was pushed too far in the early 1930s when the rooftop operators started actively poaching fans from the ticket office lines. Mack responded by building the “Spite Fence,” a solid wall that effectively blocked the view of the field from the buildings across <st1:street>20<sup>th</sup> Street</st1:street>.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WC26YIKmuGc/UoExdSJ5y_I/AAAAAAAAAFw/_xc3QFvzIbU/s1600/spite+fence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WC26YIKmuGc/UoExdSJ5y_I/AAAAAAAAAFw/_xc3QFvzIbU/s320/spite+fence.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Looking north on 20th Street with Spite Fence on left</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:384pt;height:4in'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:UsersMHSPC3~1AppDataLocalTempmsohtml1 clip_image002.jpg"
o:title="spite fence"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Lawsuits were filed but the “Spite Fence” remained in place throughout the remainder of the use of <st1:place><st1:placename>Shibe</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>Park</st1:placetype></st1:place>, later renamed Connie Mack Stadium.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>The Current Dispute <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i>Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. v. Skybox on Waveland, LLC</i>, <st1:time hour="13" minute="2">1:02</st1:time>-cv-09105 (N.D.IL.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In this case, the Cubs sued the rooftop owners on <st1:date day="16" month="12" year="2002">December 16, 2002</st1:date> seeking compensatory damages, disgorgement to the Cubs of the defendants’ profits and a permanent injunction prohibiting the rooftop owners from selling admissions to view live baseball games at Wrigley Field, among other remedies and under several causes of action. According to the complaint, the Cubs alleged that the defendant rooftop operators “…have unlawfully misappropriated the Cubs’ property, infringed its copyrights and misleadingly associated themselves with the Cubs and Wrigley Field. By doing so, Defendants have been able to operate multi-million dollar businesses in and atop buildings immediately outside Wrigley Field and unjustly enrich themselves to the tune of millions of dollars each year, while paying the Cubs absolutely nothing.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In their statement of undisputed facts, the defendants countered that the rooftops had been used to view games since the park opened on <st1:date day="23" month="4" year="1914">April 23, 1914</st1:date> as home of the Chicago Federal League team and that the Cubs conceded that their present management knew the rooftop businesses were selling admissions since at least the late 1980s. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
In May 1998, the City of <st1:city>Chicago</st1:city> enacted an ordinance authorizing the rooftops to operate as “special clubs,” which allowed them to sell admissions to view Cubs games under city license. The City wanted their piece of the action and interestingly, the Cubs made no formal objection to the ordinance. Based on the licensure and lack of any opposition from the Cubs, the rooftop owners made substantial improvements to enhance the experience and to meet <st1:city>new City</st1:city> specifications.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
By <st1:date day="27" month="1" year="2004">January 27, 2004</st1:date>, the Cubs had reached a written settlement with owners of 10 of the defendant rooftop businesses which assured that the Cubs “would not erect windscreens or other barriers to obstruct the views of the [settling rooftops]” for a period of 20 years. The remaining rooftop owners later settled and the case was dismissed on April 8, 2004, just days ahead of the Cubs home opener set for April 12<sup>th</sup>.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-intBBv6KeA8/UuEqrakP2uI/AAAAAAAAAQY/P-x2JcI8mmg/s1600/BL.cubs+lawsuit+agreement+quote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-intBBv6KeA8/UuEqrakP2uI/AAAAAAAAAQY/P-x2JcI8mmg/s1600/BL.cubs+lawsuit+agreement+quote.jpg" height="441" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Operative language in para. 7</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
After the 2004 agreement legitimized their businesses, the rooftop owners made further improvements to the properties. Long gone are the days that a rooftop experience meant an ice-filled trough of beer and hot dogs made on a single Weber. The rooftop operations are now sophisticated businesses with luxurious accommodations, enhanced food and beverage service and even electronic ticketing. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As a result of the settlement agreement of Cubs’ 2002 lawsuit, the team now has legitimate concerns that a subsequent lawsuit by the rooftop owners to enforce the terms of the contract could ultimately result in the award of monetary damages to the rooftop owners; cause further delays in the commencement of the construction project due to a temporary restraining order; or, be the basis of an injunction preventing the Cubs from erecting the revenue-producing advertising platforms for the remainder of the rooftop revenue sharing agreement. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
It is obvious that the rooftop owners need the Cubs more than the Cubs need them; however, the Cubs wanted their piece of the rooftop owners’ profits (estimated to be a payment to the Cubs in the range of $2-$3.5 million annually) and now the Cubs have to deal with the potential that their massive renovation project will be held up by the threat of litigation over the blocking of the rooftop views. </div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-21412010528858150942013-10-24T05:37:00.001-07:002014-10-11T08:05:06.854-07:00Dodgers Catcher John Roseboro Sues Juan Marichal and Rawlings for On-Field Injuries in Separate Occurrences<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i>Roseboro v. Rawlings Mfg. Co</i>., 79 <st1:state>Cal.</st1:state> Rptr. 567, 275 Cal.App.2d 43 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 1969)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rosebjo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">John Roseboro</a></strong> v. <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maricju01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Juan Marichal</a></strong><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
John Roseboro was the man who assumed the starting catcher’s role for the new Los Angeles Dodgers after <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/camparo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Roy Campanella</a></strong> was paralyzed in a single-car accident before the start of the 1958 season. Throughout his 11 years with the Dodgers, Roseboro won three World Series rings, two Gold Glove Awards and was named to several All-Star squads. For a lot of people, however, Roseboro might be best remembered as the player that Hall of Fame pitcher Juan Marichal attacked during an <st1:date day="22" month="8" year="1965">August 22, 1965</st1:date> game against the San Francisco Giants. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
While at bat, Marichal was reportedly angered by one of Roseboro’s throws back to <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Sandy Koufax</a></strong> coming too close to his head (or grazing his ear) and he snapped, swinging his bat wildly at Roseboro in retaliation. Marichal reportedly struck him several times, including a blow to the head that resulted in a bloody gash. The incident can be viewed on YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lXOWIJbzWA">here</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/I5xuLON30AU?rel=0" width="480"></iframe><br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br />
Following the attack, Marichal issued a statement, “First of all, I want to apologize for hitting Roseboro with my bat. I am sorry I did that. But he was coming toward me, with his mask in his hand, and I was afraid he was going to hit me with his mask, so I swung my bat. If he had only said something, I would not have swung. I hit him once, and I am sorry.” He was suspended for eight games by National League president Warren Giles, missing two starts, and fined $1750 (approximately $12,900 today.) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Later in the season, Roseboro filed a lawsuit against Marichal for the attack, seeking $110,000 (approximately $815,000 today) in damages - nearly twice the amount of Marichal’s $60,000 salary for the 1965 season. The case later settled for $7500 (approximately $55,000 today) and Roseboro eventually forgave Marichal publicly. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
This was not the first time that Roseboro had suffered an injury on the playing field that resulted in a lawsuit, however.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>What happened that made John Roseboro sue Rawlings?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Having caught the entire first game, Roseboro was behind the plate for the second game of the Sunday doubleheader on <st1:date day="29" month="4" year="1962">April 29, 1962</st1:date> at Dodgers Stadium against the Pittsburgh Pirates. A <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/moelljo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Joe Moeller</a></strong> pitch was fouled off by the batter, breaking a weld at the top of Roseboro’s mask. The ball entered the mask and struck Roseboro above his right eye. He was dazed following the occurrence and was taken to the hospital, where he was kept overnight for observation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Roseboro returned to the lineup on <st1:date day="10" month="5" year="1962">May 10, 1962</st1:date> and was able to play the remainder of the season, although he claimed to have “bad headaches” that plagued him through 1963 or early 1964. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The mask that Roseboro was using at the time of the occurrence was a new, lighter weight mask that had been developed by the defendant Rawlings. Roseboro had used this particular mask at the end of the 1961 season, during spring training in 1962 and in all of the 20 games that Roseboro had played in 1962. He indicated that in that time, the mask had acquired some typical dents but he inspected it before each game and found no apparent defects. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The employee who was in charge of quality control for Rawling’s products inspected the mask and found that had a different “contour” and was in a different condition than it was when it left the factory. He claimed there was nothing Rawling’s could do to control the mask after it was obtained by a player and that it had “taken sufficient beating to be much less safe than when it left [Rawling’s] control.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The employee who gave the mask to Roseboro also testified that the mask was “well used” and “pretty well beat up to stay in use” due to its flattened out appearance.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who won?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
John Roseboro. Despite the testimony from the Rawlings employees, Roseboro was awarded $20,000 in damages (approximately $125,000 today) for his injuries. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The victory was short lived, however. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>The appeal<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Roseboro’s claim against Rawlings was on the basis of strict liability. In order to recover under this theory, it was Roseboro’s burden to show that the subject catcher’s mask was defective <i>at the time it was given to him.</i> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Rawlings argued that Roseboro’s claim was based on the “simple fact that the mask broke while he was using it in the manner for which it was intended to be used, and nothing more” and that he had no proof that the mask was defective at the time it was delivered. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who won the appeal?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
Rawlings. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that Roseboro did not have any evidence that the mask was defective at the time it was given to him. Therefore, Roseboro was unable to prove a case under the theory of strict liability.Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-82267068899517636732013-10-21T06:23:00.000-07:002014-01-23T05:59:19.793-08:00Umpire Gary Darling Sues Lou Piniella for Defamation of Character<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Arial;">Darling v. Piniella</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial;">, 1991 WL 193524 (E.D.Pa., 1991)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">What happened?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The San Francisco Giants visited the Cincinnati Reds for a game at Riverfront Stadium on </span><st1:date day="3" month="8" year="1991"><span style="font-family: Arial;">August 3, 1991</span></st1:date><span style="font-family: Arial;">. During the eighth inning and with the Reds trailing 7-3, Reds second baseman <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=doranbi02,doranbi01&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Bill Doran</a></strong> hit a ball down the right field line that was initially called a home run by first base umpire Dutch Rennert. Rennert then asked for help with the call and after conferring with the other umpires, home plate umpire Gary Darling changed the ruling to a foul ball. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XRVpYx00tKw/UuEfxqGOnJI/AAAAAAAAAQA/b3g5ChVHk1Y/s1600/BL.Piniella+photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XRVpYx00tKw/UuEfxqGOnJI/AAAAAAAAAQA/b3g5ChVHk1Y/s1600/BL.Piniella+photo.jpg" height="320" width="244" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lou Piniella disagrees with a call</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Incensed, Reds manager <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pinielo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Lou Piniella</a></strong> charged from the dugout to confront Darling, threw down his hat and kicked dirt over home plate. Outfielder Paul O’Neill also threw a Gatorade bucket on the field in protest. Darling tossed Piniella and O’Neill as a result of their tantrums. The Reds ended up losing 7-3. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In a post-game interview following the loss, Piniella was alleged to have stated: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">(1)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">“I feel Darling has a bias against this ball club.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">(2)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">“All year, we've never gotten a call from him and don't think we'll get a call from him the rest of the year.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">(3)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">“He should be professional enough—if he doesn't like us for whatever reason—to at least call a good game.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">(4)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">“It's time he got his act together. As far as I'm concerned he's not a good umpire. He's biased.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">(5)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">“When it comes to the Cincinnati Reds, he doesn't call a game the way it’s supposed to get called. We're tired of it.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial;">(6)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN;">Darling “deliberately makes bad calls against the Cincinnati Reds.”</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Gary Darling did not take kindly to these comments and, along with the Major League Umpires Association, filed a defamation action against Lou Piniella just four days later on </span><st1:date day="7" month="8" year="1991"><span style="font-family: Arial;">August 7, 1991</span></st1:date><span style="font-family: Arial;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">Who won?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Lou Piniella was successful in having the case brought by the Major League Umpires Association dismissed because the law requires that in a case of defamation “the matter must clearly refer to a specific person.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The case brought by Gary Darling survived, however, and Piniella eventually settled out of court with Darling for an undisclosed amount. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Additionally, Lou Piniella also issued the following conciliatory statement, </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"The major league umpires are, in my opinion, the finest officials in any sport today. Under difficult circumstances, they acquit themselves with the very highest degree of professionalism and this has earned the respect and esteem of everyone in the game. I have high regard for Gary Darling's integrity and deeply regret comments that may have maligned his character in any way. Like his fellow umpires, he does his utmost day in and day out to fairly and dispassionately get the right call. I may not agree with each and every call, but that does not alter the fact that the major league umpires are essentially simply the best."</span></blockquote>
</div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-33764920429045406832013-10-20T06:40:00.000-07:002013-10-21T05:50:36.332-07:00Henry Oberbeck Recovers in Contract Lawsuit Against St. Louis Browns<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><span style="line-height: 115%;">Oberbeck v. Sportsman's Park & Club Ass'n</span></i><span style="line-height: 115%;">, 17 Mo.App. 310 (Mo. App., 1885)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><b><br />
</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><b>What happened?</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/oberbhe01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Henry Oberbeck</a></strong> had a relatively uneventful career in professional baseball, playing for four teams over two seasons as a third baseman, outfielder and pitcher. At the plate, he compiled a .176 lifetime batting average in 238 at bats and was 0-5 with an earned run average of 5.30 on the mound. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Oberbeck was signed to a contract with the St. Louis Browns that would pay him a total of $785 (approximately $18,255 today) for the 1883 season lasting from May 23</span><sup style="line-height: 115%;">rd</sup><span style="line-height: 115%;"> through October 31</span><sup style="line-height: 115%;">st</sup><span style="line-height: 115%;">.</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">By June 23</span><sup style="line-height: 115%;">rd</sup><span style="line-height: 115%;">, he had appeared in four games as an outfielder and was hitless in 14 at bats.</span></span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">He was then informed that the Browns no longer needed his services and was discharged, having been paid only $150 of the agreed upon contract amount. The Browns refused to pay Oberbeck the remaining salary, prompting him to sue for the balance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The Browns claimed that there were actually two separate contracts signed, the first of which had not been approved by the American Association. They claimed that the second contract included the right on the part of the Browns to terminate employment at any time. Oberbeck denied he had executed the second contract and relied on the fact that the first contract did not allow the Browns to unilaterally cancel his contract.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The case proceeded to trial and the jury was instructed that if they found Oberbeck had signed the second contract, he would not be entitled to recover. If they instead found that Oberbeck had not signed the second contract, he would be assessed damages in the amount of $635, less any amounts that he had earned or might have earned “by reasonable diligence” between the date of discharge and October 31, 1883.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Who won?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The jury awarded damages to Henry Oberbeck having found that Oberbeck had not signed the second contract.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The appeal<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The Browns appealed, claiming that the court erred in its jury instructions by failing to include the possibility that both contracts could be construed together as part of the same contract. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Who won the appeal?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Henry Oberbeck. The appellate court found that the jury had been instructed properly and adopted plaintiff’s version of the transaction, which was “borne out by sufficient evidence.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Oberbeck played professionally in 1884 for the Baltimore Monumentals and Kansas City Cowboys of the Union Association. He was out of professional baseball by the time this case was decided.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-79761773976925009222013-10-19T20:34:00.000-07:002013-10-21T05:51:23.412-07:00Ballplayer Kills Umpire Following Game<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Young v. State</i>, 10 Ga.App. 116, 72 S.E. 935 (Ga.App.
1911)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happened?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The
defendant, Young, was a member of a baseball team that played a baseball game
on a Saturday afternoon. The deceased, Williams,
was umpiring the game and keeping score.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Young
claimed that the opposing team had scored three runs; however, Williams had given
them five runs, leading to an argument in which “cursing followed.” Williams started toward the defendant with
his hand
in his pocket and Young reacted by pulling a gun and shooting Williams, killing him. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Young
was indicted for murder but convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced
to five years in prison.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Young
appealed the conviction, seeking a new trial.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How did the court rule?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Young’s
request for a new trial was denied and the conviction was upheld.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Where
a baseball player and an umpire become involved in a quarrel over a point in
the game, and while the umpire is advancing toward the player with his hand in
his pocket the player pulls his pistol and kills the umpire, a verdict finding
the player guilty of voluntary manslaughter is not contrary to law, nor without
evidence to support it.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-74136847900984841772013-10-17T08:15:00.001-07:002014-01-13T05:46:16.723-08:00Roberto Clemente’s Widow Sues F.A.A. Following Fatal Plane Crash<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Clemente v. United States</i>, 567 F.2d 1140 (C.A.1 (Puerto Rico), 1977) cert. denied, 435 <st1:country-region>U.S.</st1:country-region> 1006, 98 S.Ct. 1876, 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978)</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Clemente v. </i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i>United States</i></st1:place></st1:country-region>, 422 F.Supp. 564 (D.P.R., 1976)</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Fatal Crash<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Roberto Clemente</a></strong> was both a remarkable ballplayer and genuine folk hero. As an outfielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates, Clemente was a perennial All-Star and Gold Glove recipient. He won four batting titles, was the National League’s MVP in 1966 and the World Series MVP in 1971. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/cubsconvention/329c08f0-8adf-49ef-a3f0-8b0b5ddcdbf1_zpsac8a276a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/cubsconvention/329c08f0-8adf-49ef-a3f0-8b0b5ddcdbf1_zpsac8a276a.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On <st1:date day="30" month="9" year="1972">September 30, 1972</st1:date>, Clemente stroked a double off of Mets pitcher <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/matlajo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Jon Matlack</a></strong> to reach the 3000 hit milestone in his final regular season at bat. After closing out the 1972 season with a playoff series loss to the Cincinnati Reds, Clemente traveled to <st1:country-region>Nicaragua</st1:country-region> in November to manage the Puerto Rican All-Stars in the Amateur Baseball World Series.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A 6.2 magnitude earthquake rocked <st1:place><st1:city>Managua</st1:city>, <st1:country-region>Nicaragua</st1:country-region></st1:place> on <st1:date day="23" month="12" year="1972">December 23, 1972</st1:date>. Some 5,000 people lost their lives, another 20,000 were injured and over 250,000 were displaced from their homes. Swayed by the time he had just spent in <st1:country-region>Nicaragua</st1:country-region>, Clemente coordinated a extraordinary effort to provide emergency supplies to the victims. Even after sending three airplane loads to <st1:city>Managua</st1:city>, there were still supplies that needed to be flown to <st1:country-region>Nicaragua</st1:country-region>.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Clemente was approached by Arthur Rivera, who offered the services of his DC-7 cargo plane to airlift the remaining relief supplies. Clemente inspected the plane and agreed to pay Rivera $4000 (approximately $22,000 today) upon his return to <st1:place>Puerto Rico</st1:place>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By law, Rivera was to provide a pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer. Rivera hired a pilot, Jerry Hill, and appointed himself as the co-pilot, despite his lack of certification to co-pilot the DC-7. He was unable to hire a flight engineer for the flight. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unbeknownst to Clemente, the DC-7 had been involved in an accident on <st1:date day="2" month="12" year="1972">December 2, 1972</st1:date> when a loss of hydraulic power caused the aircraft to leave the taxiway and crash into a water-filled concrete ditch. After the incident, an airworthiness inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) questioned Rivera about intended repairs to the plane. Mr. Rivera confirmed that he intended to repair the plane and the inspector took no further action.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thereafter, the damaged propellers were replaced and the engines were run for three hours, showing no signs of malfunction. The airplane was returned to service by the repairmen; however, no inspection was conducted by the F.A.A. prior to the ill-fated flight. In fact, the plane had not even been flown since its arrival from <st1:city>Miami</st1:city> in September, 1972. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The loading of Rivera’s DC-7 was completed on <st1:date day="31" month="12" year="1972">December 31, 1972</st1:date>. Clemente decided to personally accompany this flight after having been advised that their prior shipments may not have reached the intended recipients due to governmental interference with the relief efforts. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The flight plan was filed with the F.A.A. on the morning of December 31st. At approximately 9:11 p.m., the flight taxied down Runway 7 and was cleared for takeoff at <st1:time hour="21" minute="20">9:20 p.m.</st1:time> The weather was good and visibility was at 10 miles. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Upon takeoff, the plane gained very little altitude and at <st1:time hour="21" minute="23">9:23 p.m.</st1:time> the tower received a message that the plane was turning back around. Unfortunately, the aircraft did not make it, crashing into the <st1:place>Atlantic Ocean</st1:place> about one and a half miles from shore. Everyone aboard the plane, including Roberto Clemente, perished in the crash. He was just 38 years old.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The post-occurrence investigation revealed that there was an engine failure before the crash and that the plane was nearly 4200 pounds over the maximum allowable gross takeoff weight.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Resulting Lawsuit<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Roberto Clemente's widow, Vera Zabala Clemente, and the next of kin of the other passengers filed a lawsuit against the <st1:country-region>United States of America</st1:country-region> alleging that the F.A.A. employees were negligent under the Federal Tort Claims Act and responsible for the resulting crash. (The Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that authorizes parties to sue the <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region> for tortious conduct.) </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Factually, the plaintiffs’ claim was based on the premise that the F.A.A. owed a duty to promote flight safety which was breached by their failure to revoke the airworthiness certificate of the DC-7 after the December 2, 1972 accident; monitor the repair process; and, otherwise discover that the plane was not airworthy, had an improper registration number, was not properly weighted and balanced and did not have a qualified crew. It was the plaintiff’s contention that had the F.A.A. acted in accordance with their own internal procedures (Order SO8430.20C, “Continuous Surveillance of Large and Turbined Powered Aircraft”), the aircraft would have been denied flight clearance, the deceased passengers would have been advised of the deficiencies and that the plane crash would never have happened. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region> countered that the F.A.A. did not have any legal duty towards the decedents to “discover or anticipate acts which might result in a violation of Federal Regulations.” They also claimed that there was no connection between any duty and the fatal crash.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Who won?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The trial court found for Vera Zabala Clemente and the next of kin of the other deceased passengers on the issue of negligence.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Why?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The trial court was convinced by the F.A.A. investigative report that the cause of the crash was “overboosting” of the No. 2 engine at takeoff and the fact that the plane was overloaded by more than two tons. Because the flight crew was inadequate, the situation was such that “…for all practical purposes the Captain was flying solo in emergency conditions.”</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Section 6 of Order SO8430.20C called for “continuous surveillance of large and turbine powered aircraft to determine noncompliance of Federal Aviation Regulations.” Furthermore, a “ramp inspection” was required to determine that the crew and operator were in compliance with the safety requirements regarding the airworthiness of the aircraft as to the weight, balance and pilot qualifications. Any indication of an “illegal” flight crew was to be made known to the crew and persons chartering the service. Finally, discovery of such noncompliance was to be given the highest priority, second only to accident investigation.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The trial court found that these provisions of the Continuous Surveillance of Large and Turbined Powered Aircraft order were applicable to Roberto Clemente’s chartered flight and that the decedents were within the class of people sought to be protected under the order. If the required ramp inspection had been completed, the lack of a proper crew and overloading would have been discovered, Clemente would have been notified and, presumably, he would not have agreed to board the plane and avoided his untimely death. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The order was held to be mandatory in nature and because the F.A.A. violated its own orders, a failure to exercise due care was evident. Accordingly, the F.A.A.’s failure to inspect and ground the plane “contributed to the death of the…decedents.” </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The appeal<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region> appealed the decision claiming that the trial court erred in its finding of a duty on the part of the Federal Aviation Administration. The critical question the appellate court was asked to address was whether the F.A.A. staff in <st1:place>Puerto Rico</st1:place> had a duty to inspect the subject DC-7 and warn the decedents of “irregularities.” </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The appellate court acknowledged that the Federal Aviation Act was enacted to promote air safety but that this “hardly creates a legal duty to provide a particular class of passengers particular protective measures.” Further, the issuance of the Continuous Surveillance of Large and Turbined Powered Aircraft order was done gratuitously and did not create a duty to the decedents or any other passengers.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court ultimately held that the order created a duty of the local inspectors to “perform their jobs in a certain way as directed by their superiors.” The failure to comply with this order, however, was grounds for internal discipline but did not create a cause of action based on negligent conduct against the F.A.A. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is well-founded that the pilot in command has responsibility to determine that an airplane is safe for flight. There was nothing in this F.A.A. directive that shifted this responsibility to the federal government.</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, the court found that the failure of the F.A.A. to inspect the plane did not add to the risk of injury to the passengers and there was no evidence that any of the deceased had relied the F.A.A. to inspect the aircraft prior to takeoff or even knew about Order SO8430.20C. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Who won the appeal?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <st1:country-region>United States</st1:country-region>. The finding of negligence on the part of the Federal Aviation Administration was reversed. </div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In its opinion, the appellate court concluded, “The passengers on this ill fated flight were acting for the highest of humanitarian motives at the time of the tragic crash. It would certainly be appropriate for a society to honor such conduct by taking those measures necessary to see to it that the families of the victims are adequately provided for in the future. However, making those kinds of decisions is beyond the scope of judicial power and authority. We are bound to apply the law and that duty requires the reversal of the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.”</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The plaintiff’s request that the case be heard by the United States Supreme court was denied. </div>
</div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-64256258186165616462013-10-15T04:43:00.000-07:002013-10-24T06:07:15.155-07:00Former Cardinals Slugger Albert Pujols Sues Former Cardinals Slugger Jack Clark for On-Air Accusations of PED Use<div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jose Alberto Pujols Alcantara v. Jack Anthony Clark</span></i></strong></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">St. Louis County Circuit Court, 13SL-CC03506<o:p></o:p></span></strong></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><strong>What Happened?<o:p></o:p></strong></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">On </span></strong><st1:date day="2" month="8" year="2013">August, 2, 2013</st1:date><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">, former Major League star <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clarkja01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Jack Clark</a></strong> accused <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Albert Pujols</a></strong> of having used performance enhancing drugs earlier in his career. </span></strong><st1:place>Clark</st1:place><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"> alleged that he was informed back in 2000 by Pujols’ former trainer that he had "shot (Pujols) up" with steroids. The show’s co-host also said he long had suspected that Pujols has used steroids to which </span></strong><st1:place>Clark</st1:place><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"> allegedly responded, "I know for a fact he was."<o:p></o:p></span></strong></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Albert Pujols, has maintained all along that he has never used performance enhancing substances of any kind. In response to the broadcast, the radio station issued a retraction and apology to Pujols: <o:p></o:p></span></strong></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">InsideSTL Enterprises publicly retracts the allegations of PED use by Albert Pujols made on the station recently. We regret that these statements were made. To the extent that our transmission and broadcast of these statements was perceived by anyone as indicating support for, or validation of, those allegations, we emphasize that we had no advance knowledge of the allegations, we did not make them, we know of no proof or evidence to substantiate them, and we disavow and retract them.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">We believe that Albert Pujols is a man of principle, faith, and character. We sincerely apologize to Albert Pujols, and his wife and family, for any damage this situation may have caused them, and we assure them that insideSTL has tremendous respect for the person he is, both on and off the field. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Additionally, the radio show was pulled from the air after only 7 broadcasts.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Despite the apology, Pujols has now filed a lawsuit against <st1:place>Clark</st1:place>, individually, seeking unspecified damages for defamation of character. He claims that <st1:place>Clark</st1:place>’s, statements were "malicious, reckless and outrageous falsehoods" and have caused him “personal humiliation, mental anguish and anxiety.” <o:p></o:p></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Pujols further characterizes his own reputation as "impeccable and beyond reproach" and portrays <st1:place>Clark</st1:place> as a "struggling radio talk show host." <o:p></o:p></div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
<b>Lie Detector Test</b><br />
<br />
Via his attorneys, Clark has offered to take a lie detector test if Pujols will sit for one as well.<br />
<br />
<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzNT2wpuk5RsTE1FZGIzNklRZWs/preview" width="740" height="480"></iframe><br />
<br />
</div><div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What’s Next?<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="NormalWeb3" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Updates will be posted as new information emerges.<o:p></o:p></div>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-51808570860779280312013-10-04T12:23:00.000-07:002013-10-15T05:24:42.890-07:00A-Rod Sues Major League Baseball and Bud Selig Over PED Suspension<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i>Alexander Rodriguez v. Major League Baseball, et al.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Supreme Court of the State of <st1:state>New York</st1:state>, <st1:place><st1:placetype>County</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>New York</st1:placename></st1:place>, No. 0653436 (2013)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What Happened?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Beleaguered superstar <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=rodrial01,rodrig011ale&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Alex Rodriguez</a></strong> has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Major League Baseball, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Bud Selig, individually, alleging tortious conduct with “one, and only one, goal: to improperly marshal evidence that they hope to use to destroy the reputation and career of Alex Rodriguez, one of the most accomplished Major League Baseball players of all time…the ‘savior’ of America’s pastime.” </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/cubsconvention/IMG_08321_zps7146417f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/cubsconvention/IMG_08321_zps7146417f.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The complaint initially focuses on the alleged “vigilante justice” in MLB’s investigation of the Biogenesis clinic, calling the investigation a “witch hunt” and singling out Rodriguez for “an unprecedented 211-game suspension, the longest non-permanent ban in baseball history.” It is further claimed that Selig even appeared on the David Letterman show three weeks before Rodriguez’s suspension was officially announced to discuss the investigation and the financial consequences of the punishment, which will exceed $100 million, in Selig’s estimation. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez’s baseball acumen is highlighted, portraying him as “one of the most accomplished baseball players of all time,” including having been the youngest player to surpass the 500 and 600 home run barriers, breaking the records set by <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/foxxji01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Jimmie Foxx</a></strong> and <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Babe Ruth</a></strong>, respectively. Off the field, he details a $3.9 million donation to the <st1:place><st1:placetype>University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Miami</st1:placename></st1:place> to renovate its baseball stadium. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Bud Selig’s tenure as commissioner is depicted as “disastrous” and the Mitchell report is evoked to highlight an allegation that Selig “deliberately turned a blind eye to prolific steroid use because of the overwhelmingly positive publicity generated by the record-breaking competitions of [Mark] McGwire, [Sammy] Sosa and [Barry] Bonds.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants claiming that their misconduct has interfered with actual and prospective contractual relationships with third parties, including the New York Yankees. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>The Current Collective Bargaining Agreement <o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">In 1968, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), led by Marvin Miller, entered into its first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Major League Baseball, governing the terms and conditions of employment as an MLB player. The CBA is periodically negotiated and the current agreement is set to expire on <st1:date day="1" month="12" year="2016">December 1, 2016</st1:date>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Additionally, the MLBPA entered into a Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program with MLB, seeking to deter the use of banned substances, including anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs and to "provide for...an orderly, systematic, and cooperative resolution of any disputes that may arise concerning the existence, interpretation, or application" of the policy itself. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">After the Mitchell report was published, the Joint Drug Agreement was amended to allow for a more rigorous system of testing and punishment. This past January, the Joint Drug Agreement was amended again to allow for in-season testing. Not surprisingly, the Joint Drug Agreement contains confidentiality provisions regarding player information. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Biogenesis<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">In January 2013, the Miami New Times, published documents allegedly obtained from Biogenesis, an anti-aging clinic located in <st1:place><st1:city>Coral Gables</st1:city>, <st1:state>Florida</st1:state></st1:place> that purportedly identified a number of Major League players who used the clinic to obtain human growth hormone and other performance enhancing drugs. MLB thereafter sued Biogenesis, owner Anthony Bosch and others in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez, who makes his home in <st1:state>Florida</st1:state>, was allegedly linked to the Biogenesis Clinic in these documents. It is Rodriguez’s allegation that the true purpose for the Biogenesis Suit was to allow MLB to circumvent the agreed procedures and obtain “evidence” to “allow MLB to publicly shame and ultimately suspend Mr. Rodriguez and other ballplayers.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">It is further alleged that MLB issued a notices to Rodriguez’s former attorneys and public relations firm, seeking documents concerning their representation of Mr. Rodriguez and that these were undertaken “solely with the intent of harming Mr. Rodriguez and interfering with his business relationships.” </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The complaint alleges that several individuals connected with the Biogenesis clinic were harassed by MLB’s investigators, offered money for their cooperation and even that the MLB “is paying [Anthony] Bosch a total of $5 million (in monthly installments) in order to buy his cooperation.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What Is Alleged in the Lawsuit?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez alleges that Major League Baseball officials “tortiously and maliciously” made statements and leaked information in order to damage A-Rod’s public reputation and prevent him from performing under his contract with the Yankees. It is further alleged that this was done to impugn Rodriguez’s public opinion and to bolster “Selig’s goal of cementing his legacy as the commissioner who cleaned up baseball.” Rodriguez’s 211-game suspension was officially announced on <st1:date day="5" month="8" year="2013">August 5, 2013</st1:date>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez claims that the MLB’s conduct in failing to keep the investigation matters private has permanently harmed his reputation and ability to secure and retain endorsement contacts. For instance, he claims that Nike and <st1:city>Toyota</st1:city> terminated their deals with him and that his voice-over work on the animated film “Henry and Me” was cut. Additionally, he claims that the suspension would cause him to lose “tens of millions of dollars in salary.” </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Rodriguez brings causes of action under tortuous interference with existing contracts and tortuous interference with prospective business relationships and seeks compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What Comes Next?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The defendants will either answer, file motions to dismiss or seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Updates will be posted as the case progresses, so check back often.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-16637524547501137182013-09-24T19:40:00.001-07:002013-10-15T05:34:17.418-07:00Fan Sues Phillies After He is Hit in the Face By a Foul Ball He Tried to Catch Barehanded<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Pakett v. The Phillies, LP</i>, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa.Commw. Ct., 2005)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>What Happened?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff Neil Pakett, a dentist, attended the Philadelphia Phillies game at Veterans Stadium on June 25, 2001. He was sitting in Section 232, Row 5, Seat 8 when <strong><a target="_blank" href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rolliji01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com">Jimmy Rollins</a></strong> came to bat from the left side of the plate in the bottom of the first inning. Rollins fouled off a pitch into Section 232. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Pakett saw the ball coming towards him and attempted to catch it with his bare hands because he “wanted a souvenir.” Unfortunately, Dr. Pakett was not able to catch the ball and it struck him in his left eye. As a result, he experienced temporary blindness and underwent surgery. He claimed that his full vision never returned.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Pakett was familiar with Section 232, having occupied the same seat 6 or 7 times over the span of several years. Additionally, he was aware that foul balls were hit into the immediate vicinity of his seat 4 or 5 times per game. This particular seat was about 80 feet from home plate, to the left of a plexiglass shield that had been installed in 1996 to better protect the fans behind the batter from foul balls.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Pakett conceded that a batted ball entering the stands could cause an injury and acknowledged that the back of the ticket contained a warning that he entered the stadium at his own risk. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Phillies and the City of Philadelphia moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit because there was no duty on their part to protect him from or warn him of the risk of being struck by a foul ball. The court agreed and found that Dr. Pakett’s having been hit by the foul ball was an “inherent risk” of the game of baseball and that there were no issues with the backstop in place at Veterans Stadium at the time of the occurrence. Finally, the court found that Dr. Pakett had “sufficient reaction time” to get out of the way of the ball but, rather, he intentionally tried to catch the ball to take home as a souvenir. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiff appealed the ruling claiming that there was a duty to protect the area of the stands where plaintiff was sitting due to the occurrence of foul balls landing in that area with “great frequency, speed and force.”<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Who won?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The Phillies and City of Philadelphia. The court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b>Why?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The chance to catch a foul and keep the ball is “one of the exciting thrills of attendance at the game.” The “no-duty” rule was found to apply because the risk of being hit by the foul ball was a common and inherent risk of attending a baseball game and plaintiff assumed this risk by attending the game. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Here, Dr. Pakett was struck by the foul ball during the course of the game while sitting in a seat he had occupied on other occasions. He was well aware that foul balls frequently entered his section and as the particular ball came towards him, Dr. Pakett attempted to catch it instead of trying to avoid the ball.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Further, plaintiff introduced no evidence that the netting and plexigass protection behind home plate was inadequate or deviated from an established standard for Major League ballparks. <o:p></o:p></div>Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-56458177580264837102013-09-24T12:03:00.000-07:002013-10-20T06:41:23.384-07:00Orioles Pitcher Intentionally Throws Ball at Fan Causing Injuries at Fenway Park <div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">Manning v. Grimsley</span></i><span style="line-height: 107%; text-align: justify;">, 643 F.2d 20 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1981)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;">What Happened?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">The Baltimore Orioles and Boston Red Sox game at </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="line-height: 107%;">Fenway</span></st1:placename><span style="line-height: 107%;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="line-height: 107%;">Park</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="line-height: 107%;"> on </span><st1:date day="16" month="9" year="1975"><span style="line-height: 107%;">September 16, 1975</span></st1:date><span style="line-height: 107%;"> featured a marquee match up between aces <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/palmeji01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Jim Palmer</a></strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tiantlu01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Luis Tiant</a></strong>. Both pitchers would toss complete games, with Tiant shutting out the Orioles 2-0.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">During the first three innings of the game, Orioles lefty <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/player_search.cgi?results=grimsro02,grimsro01&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Ross Grimsley</a></strong> was warming up in the visitor’s bullpen next to the right field bleachers. He was being “continuously heckled” by the fans sitting in the nearby section and he stared the hecklers down on several occasions. At the end of the third inning, as the bullpen catcher made his way back to the bench Grimsley threw a ball directly towards the hecklers at “more than 80 miles per hour.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">The bullpen was separated from the stands by a wire mesh fence; however, the ball passed through the fence and struck <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mannida01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">David Manning</a></strong> (17) in the face. Manning was admitted to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary where he had both of his eyes patched and he experienced some swelling to the left side of his face. It was unclear whether he sustained any permanent injuries, however. Grimsley replied that he was just warming up and did not mean to hit him. He was “sorry as heck the whole thing happened.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">Manning filed suit against Grimsley and the Orioles for battery and negligence. The case <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7697590220817309616" name="_GoBack"></a>proceeded to trial and at the close of plaintiff’s case, the court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, meaning that plaintiff had not carried his burden of proof and was unable to prove the elements necessary to establish that a battery had occurred. The negligence count survived; however, the jury subsequently found in favor of Grimsley and the Orioles. Manning recovered nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling on the battery count.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;">Who won?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">Manning won the appeal on the battery count and was granted a new trial. He did not appeal the jury’s verdict as to the negligence count.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;">Why?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">In order to prove battery, Manning had to show that (1) Grimsley intended to harm him and (2) the harmful contact with him resulted directly or indirectly from Grimsley’s conduct. Testimony from witnesses included eyewitness observations that Grimsley looked into the stands immediately following the heckling on several occasions and that “he had an angry, frustrated look on his face, as though he were releasing tension” at the moment he threw the ball towards the fans. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">The court found that in light of Grimsley’s status as an expert pitcher, the testimony regarding his actions in response to the heckling and the fact that “the ball traveled at a right angle to the direction in which he had been pitching and in the direction of the hecklers” that the jury reasonably could have determined that Grimsley intended (1) to throw the ball at the hecklers (2) to cause them imminent apprehension of being hit and (3) to respond to conduct presently affecting his ability to prepare to enter the game. Accordingly, it was error for the district court to have directed a verdict in favor of Grimsley on the battery count. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="line-height: 107%;">Then what happened?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">There is no further record regarding what happened upon rehearing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 107%;">Ross Grimsley went on to win 124 games, including 20 in 1978 with the Montreal Expos.<span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7697590220817309616.post-14531744517423259782013-09-06T06:40:00.000-07:002014-09-12T05:42:20.762-07:00Merkle’s Boner and False Imprisonment<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; orphans: auto; padding: 6px; text-align: center; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K_UKVd7edDY/Uina83iBmwI/AAAAAAAAAFU/JLWMVFgzv-w/s1600/IMG_0762.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K_UKVd7edDY/Uina83iBmwI/AAAAAAAAAFU/JLWMVFgzv-w/s320/IMG_0762.JPG" height="426" style="cursor: move;" width="640" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;"><div style="margin: 0px;">
The Polo Grounds viewed from "Coogan's Bluff"</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>Talcott v. National Exhibition Co</i>., 144 A.D. 337, 128 N.Y.S. 1059 (2 Dept., 1911)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>What Was Merkle’s Boner?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
On <st1:date day="23" month="9" year="1908">September 23, 1908</st1:date> the Chicago Cubs played the New York Giants at the famed Polo Grounds. <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bridwal01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Al Bridwell</a></strong> came to bat with two outs and the game tied 1-1 in the bottom of the ninth. He laced a single to the outfield and the runner on third trotted home, thinking he had just scored the winning run. The Cubs second baseman <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eversjo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Johnny Evers</a></strong>, of the famed “Tinkers to Evers to Chance” double play combination and future Hall of Fame inductee; however, called for the ball from the outfield because <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/merklfr01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Fred Merkle</a></strong>, the Giants runner on first, had not touched second base. Although there is controversy regarding whether Evers got the actual ball back, the umpire ruled Merkle out at second and due to the force, the apparent winning run was erased. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As was common at the time, the fans at the Polo Grounds would walk across the field after the game to exit the ballpark. By the time the play was decided and the winning run nullified, however, the fans believing the Giants had won were already streaming across the field and it was impossible to resume the game before the game was called on account of darkness. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
On <st1:date day="6" month="10" year="1908">October 6, 1908</st1:date>, the National League Board of Directors made its final ruling that because Merkle had failed to reach second, the force rule was applied correctly and the game was a tie. At the end of the season, the Cubs and Giants were tied for first place and a makeup game was needed to determine which team would play in the World Series. This game was played on <st1:date day="8" month="10" year="1908">October 8, 1908</st1:date> at the Polo Grounds and reportedly drew 40,000 people, the largest crowd ever to have attended a single baseball game at the time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The Cubs won this game over the Giants and went on to beat the Tigers 4-1 in the World Series, their last World Series victory. The play was dubbed “Merkle’s Boner” and Fred Merkle was nicknamed “Bonehead.” Years later, Merkle admitted that he never touched second but claimed he had been assured by umpire <strong><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/emslibo01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=linker-www.blogger.com" target="_blank">Bob Emslie</a></strong> that the Giants had won. Despite a solid 16-year Major League career, including four seasons with the Cubs, Merkle was never able to shake the stigma of the play. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>What happened?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
As a result of the play and the October 6<sup>th</sup> mandate for the makeup game, the Polo Grounds played host to the makeup game on <st1:date day="8" month="10" year="1908">October 8, 1908</st1:date>. This game was “of very great importance to those interested in such games, and a vast outpouring of people were attracted to it.” On the morning of the game, the ticket booths at the Polo Grounds were overwhelmed with people trying to secure reserved seats for that afternoon’s game. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Plaintiff Fredrick Talcott, Jr. went to the ballpark intending to buy tickets and entered an “inclosure” where the ticket booths were located. After finding that the tickets were sold out, he tried to leave the inclosure along with a great number of people also trying to exit at the same time. As he attempted to leave, however, ballpark attendants prevented his exit and he was “detained in the inclosure for an hour or more, much to his annoyance and personal inconvenience” and brought this lawsuit seeking damages for false imprisonment. He further claimed to have been pushed by the defendant’s “special policemen.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The Giants countered that plaintiff simply could have used one of the other exits available. Mr. Talcott alleged, however, that he was not aware of any other exits to the inclosure and none were pointed out to him.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Who won?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Fredrick Talcott. The case went to a jury trial and Mr. Talcott was awarded $500 in damages (approximately $12,000 today) and judgment was entered on <st1:date day="19" month="5" year="1910">May 19, 1910</st1:date>. The Giants appealed and the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mr. Talcott.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<b>Why?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
The jury found that that plaintiff’s detention was unwarranted and awarded him $500. The court agreed with this finding, ruled that the award was not excessive and found no reason to interfere with the jury’s verdict. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
Additionally, the court found that Mr. Talcott was not required to demonstrate that he incurred any special or actual damages as a result of the detention. </div>
Authorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00717656630667994683noreply@blogger.com1