Man Shown Napping on ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” Broadcast has $10 Million Lawsuit Thrown Out by Judge

Andrew Robert Rector v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, ESPN New York, et al.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of The Bronx, No. 303630 (2014)

 

What Happened?

Andrew Robert Rector attended the April 13, 2014 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. 

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.”

Rector was further angered that the scene was later posted to MLB.com and YouTube by Major League Baseball Advanced Media under the title, “Tired Fan Naps in the Stands.”

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.”

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. 

The actual exchange between Shulman and Kruk follows:  

           

Shulman: 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.

Kruk:   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.

Shulman:  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?

Kruk:  Maybe that’s his buddy and he likes him a lot better when he’s asleep.

Shulman:  I think the other guy’s really more concerned with the food and the game.

Kruk:  Chicken fingers are a special item at the ballpark.  Why share?  Get ‘em while he’s asleep so he won’t ask for one.

Shulman:  We gotta see how long this guy’s out for.

Kruk:  You don’t think he can sleep, it’s only the fourth inning, you don’t think he can sleep through?

Shulman:  Did he sleep through the [Carlos] Beltran homer?  I mean 45,000 people stand up and cheer and he sleeps through.

Kruk:  You think it’d be tough to, but he seemed comfortable.  It didn’t look like he just started to sleep.

Shulman:  Not a cousin, not a relative?

Kruk:  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.

As you can see, this portion of the broadcast did not appear to support Rector’s allegations.

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.

Who Won?

The defendants prevailed.  In her opinion issued on August 17, 2015, Judge Julia I. Rodriguez granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the case in its entirety. 

Why?

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. 

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.

As a result, plaintiff’s entire case was dismissed as to all defendants.        

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."