Dodgers Catcher John Roseboro Sues Juan Marichal and Rawlings for On-Field Injuries in Separate Occurrences

Roseboro v. Rawlings Mfg. Co., 79 Cal. Rptr. 567, 275 Cal.App.2d 43 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 1969)

John Roseboro v. Juan Marichal

John Roseboro was the man who assumed the starting catcher’s role for the new Los Angeles Dodgers after Roy Campanella 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 August 22, 1965 game against the San Francisco Giants. 

While at bat, Marichal was reportedly angered by one of Roseboro’s throws back to Sandy Koufax 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 here.

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.)  

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. 

This was not the first time that Roseboro had suffered an injury on the playing field that resulted in a lawsuit, however.

What happened that made John Roseboro sue Rawlings?

Having caught the entire first game, Roseboro was behind the plate for the second game of the Sunday doubleheader on April 29, 1962 at Dodgers Stadium against the Pittsburgh Pirates.  A Joe Moeller 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.

Roseboro returned to the lineup on May 10, 1962 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.     

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.

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.”

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.

Who won?

John Roseboro.  Despite the testimony from the Rawlings employees, Roseboro was awarded $20,000 in damages (approximately $125,000 today) for his injuries. 

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.

The appeal

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 at the time it was given to him. 

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. 

Who won the appeal?

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.

Umpire Gary Darling Sues Lou Piniella for Defamation of Character

Darling v. Piniella, 1991 WL 193524 (E.D.Pa., 1991)

What happened?

The San Francisco Giants visited the Cincinnati Reds for a game at Riverfront Stadium on August 3, 1991.  During the eighth inning and with the Reds trailing 7-3, Reds second baseman Bill Doran 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. 

Lou Piniella disagrees with a call

Incensed, Reds manager Lou Piniella 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. 

  

In a post-game interview following the loss, Piniella was alleged to have stated:

(1)   “I feel Darling has a bias against this ball club.”

(2)   “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.”

(3)   “He should be professional enough—if he doesn't like us for whatever reason—to at least call a good game.”

(4)   “It's time he got his act together. As far as I'm concerned he's not a good umpire. He's biased.”

(5)   “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.”

(6)   Darling “deliberately makes bad calls against the Cincinnati Reds.”

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 August 7, 1991. 

Who won?

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.”

The case brought by Gary Darling survived, however, and Piniella eventually settled out of court with Darling for an undisclosed amount. 

Additionally, Lou Piniella also issued the following conciliatory statement,  

"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."

Henry Oberbeck Recovers in Contract Lawsuit Against St. Louis Browns

Oberbeck v. Sportsman's Park & Club Ass'n, 17 Mo.App. 310 (Mo. App., 1885)

What happened?

Henry Oberbeck 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.  


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^rd through October 31^st.  By June 23^rd, he had appeared in four games as an outfielder and was hitless in 14 at bats.

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.

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.

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.

Who won?

The jury awarded damages to Henry Oberbeck having found that Oberbeck had not signed the second contract.

The appeal

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. 

Who won the appeal?

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.”

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.

Ballplayer Kills Umpire Following Game

Young v. State, 10 Ga.App. 116, 72 S.E. 935 (Ga.App. 1911)

What happened?

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.

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. 

Young was indicted for murder but convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison.

Young appealed the conviction, seeking a new trial. 

How did the court rule?

Young’s request for a new trial was denied and the conviction was upheld.

“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.”

Roberto Clemente’s Widow Sues F.A.A. Following Fatal Plane Crash

Clemente v. United States, 567 F.2d 1140 (C.A.1 (Puerto Rico), 1977) cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1006, 98 S.Ct. 1876, 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978)

Clemente v. United States, 422 F.Supp. 564 (D.P.R., 1976)

The Fatal Crash

Roberto Clemente 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. 

On September 30, 1972, Clemente stroked a double off of Mets pitcher Jon Matlack 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 Nicaragua in November to manage the Puerto Rican All-Stars in the Amateur Baseball World Series.

A 6.2 magnitude earthquake rocked Managua, Nicaragua on December 23, 1972.  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 Nicaragua, Clemente coordinated a extraordinary effort to provide emergency supplies to the victims.  Even after sending three airplane loads to Managua, there were still supplies that needed to be flown to Nicaragua.

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 Puerto Rico.  

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. 

Unbeknownst to Clemente, the DC-7 had been involved in an accident on December 2, 1972 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.

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 Miami in September, 1972. 

The loading of Rivera’s DC-7 was completed on December 31, 1972.  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.  

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 9:20 p.m.  The weather was good and visibility was at 10 miles.

   

Upon takeoff, the plane gained very little altitude and at 9:23 p.m. the tower received a message that the plane was turning back around.  Unfortunately, the aircraft did not make it, crashing into the Atlantic Ocean 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.

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.

Resulting Lawsuit

Roberto Clemente's widow, Vera Zabala Clemente, and the next of kin of the other passengers filed a lawsuit against the United States of America 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 United States for tortious conduct.) 

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.

The United States 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.

Who won?

The trial court found for Vera Zabala Clemente and the next of kin of the other deceased passengers on the issue of negligence.

Why?

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.”

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.

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.    

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.”

The appeal

The United States 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 Puerto Rico had a duty to inspect the subject DC-7 and warn the decedents of “irregularities.” 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Who won the appeal?

The United States.  The finding of negligence on the part of the Federal Aviation Administration was reversed.

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.”

The plaintiff’s request that the case be heard by the United States Supreme court was denied.     

Former Cardinals Slugger Albert Pujols Sues Former Cardinals Slugger Jack Clark for On-Air Accusations of PED Use

Jose Alberto Pujols Alcantara v. Jack Anthony Clark

St. Louis County Circuit Court, 13SL-CC03506

What Happened?

On August, 2, 2013, former Major League star Jack Clark accused Albert Pujols of having used performance enhancing drugs earlier in his career.  Clark 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 Clark allegedly responded, "I know for a fact he was."

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:

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.

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.

Additionally, the radio show was pulled from the air after only 7 broadcasts.

Despite the apology, Pujols has now filed a lawsuit against Clark, individually, seeking unspecified damages for defamation of character.  He claims that Clark’s, statements were "malicious, reckless and outrageous falsehoods" and have caused him “personal humiliation, mental anguish and anxiety.” 

Pujols further characterizes his own reputation as "impeccable and beyond reproach" and portrays Clark as a "struggling radio talk show host."  

Lie Detector Test

Via his attorneys, Clark has offered to take a lie detector test if Pujols will sit for one as well.

What’s Next?

Updates will be posted as new information emerges.

A-Rod Sues Major League Baseball and Bud Selig Over PED Suspension

Alexander Rodriguez v. Major League Baseball, et al.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 0653436 (2013)

What Happened?

Beleaguered superstar Alex Rodriguez 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.”

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.

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 Jimmie Foxx and Babe Ruth, respectively.  Off the field, he details a $3.9 million donation to the University of Miami to renovate its baseball stadium. 

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.”

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.

The Current Collective Bargaining Agreement

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 December 1, 2016.

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. 

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.

Biogenesis

In January 2013, the Miami New Times, published documents allegedly obtained from Biogenesis, an anti-aging clinic located in Coral Gables, Florida 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. 

Rodriguez, who makes his home in Florida, 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.”

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.” 

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.”

What Is Alleged in the Lawsuit?

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 August 5, 2013.

 

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 Toyota 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.” 

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.

What Comes Next?

The defendants will either answer, file motions to dismiss or seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 

Updates will be posted as the case progresses, so check back often.