NOTE 2: I am not a lawyer. Do not take this post as the law. I am not giving you advice. This post is simple just an explanation of a case I have read in law school.
Now that I have gotten the legal disclaimers out of the way, I'd like to introduce you to a case that I have recently read. Let me tell you the facts and see if this sounds familiar.
In Avila v Citrus Community College District (2006) [see post above if you'd like to read the entire case] , the Rio Hondo Community College Roadrunner were playing the Citrus Community College Owls pre-season baseball game. A Roadrunner hit a player with a pitch. When Avila, came to bat, as retaliation for the last batter hit, the Owls pitcher hit Avila in the head with the pitch. Avila felt dizzy and in pain but he went to first. He then went to second when the defender realized Avila was in pain. Avila ended up suing a lot of people over this incident (both schools, his manager, the helmet manufacturer, and the school districts). This particular case involves a suit between Avila and the rival school's school district.
Now I'd like to pause for a moment. This situation happens often in baseball, both professional and amateur. Ozzie has openly said if his players keep getting hit, he'll retaliate. Bobby Jenks got fined this year when he admitted he intentionally threw at Ian Kinsler earlier this year as retaliation. A few years ago (I'm sorry I don't remember the particulars but), Ozzie told a newly called up minor leaguer to hit the batter. After this pitcher threw it far behind the batter (but not hitting the batter), Ozzie threw a shit fit at this pitcher and we have never heard of this guy again.
So this decision could potentially have an impact on guys like Ozzie Guillen, or anyone in baseball who makes decisions like this. If we say a batter can collect money damages for things like this, then not only could we see this get eliminated from baseball, but if we do, dudes will have to go through extensive litigation and could lose a lot of money.
However, the court did not rule in favor of the batter. Avila sued the school district claiming they were negligent (I spent more than half a semester in law school going over what constitutes negligence so I'm not going to explain what it is, but feel free to briefly learn it.) The court said getting hit was an implicit part of the game of baseball and "an inherent risk of the sport." As a baseball player, you essentially agree to certain things that happen to you. In football, you agree to get tackled. And if you suffer two concussions or force a guy to become paralyzed, that's tough shit because you've already given your consent for people to do things to you that could potentially cause you serious or life-threatening harm. The same is true for baseball.
Even though getting intentionally hit is illegal and against MLB and probably all amateur baseball rules, it's still an inherent part of the game and you, as a player, have consented that if you get hit, you essentially can not sue for your damages.
The court goes on to say further
Pitcher intentionally throw at batters to disrupt a batter's timing or back him away from home plate, to retaliate after a teammate has been hit, or to punish a batter for having hit a home run. Some of the most respected baseball managers and pitchers have openly discussed the fundamental place throwing at batters has in their sport...
It is one thing to punish a pitcher who hits a batter by ejecting him from the game, or for a league to suspend the pitcher, it is quite another for tort law to chill any pitcher from throwing inside, i.e. close to the batter's body- a permissible and essential part of the sport- for fear over an errant pitch. For better or for worse, being intentionally thrown at is a fundamental part and inherent risk of the sport of baseball. It is not the function of tort law to police such conduct.
This is a pretty interesting statement. If you throw a ball at someone's head normally, you could potentially get sued for millions of dollars. But if you do it with uniforms, it's OK.
Another point DME and I have discussed is: "Is getting intentionally hit really a part of the game?" He says no. He says it's against the rules of baseball and thus no pitcher should ever do it. But this court talks about that. They say it still is a part of the game, even though it is against the rules. However, I bet if you polled every MLB player, they would say that getting hit and getting intentionally hit IS a part of the game. I think everyone in baseball is aware of it and they realize the risks. They know that they could get hit and I bet that they would WANT retaliation of they got hit. Even if baseball players are more pacifistic now, I still bet they realize it is a risk they are taking by playing. I'm sure it's small, but still a risk.
Plus, I think this could create a slippery slope. Take for instance, Carlos Quentin. The guys purposefully crouches inside the plate. Are pitchers not allowed to throw inside to him for fear that if they do hit, he'll sue them the next day? I think implementing tort law would cause pitchers to pitch less inside for fear of a law suit as well. Now you can argue if that really IS such a bad thing for there will be less injuries and harm to human life at only a small expense- a pitcher had to change the way he pitches.
I think you can also argue that if Avila won, that could translate to how other sports are played. The other week, Brady Quinn got picked off (shocking)and went to go try and tackle the player that picked him off. But because he's Brady Quinn and because he's a QB, he is a poor tackler. He ended up tackling a defender in an illegal way and I believe hurt the defender's legs for a bit. What he did was clearly against the rules of the NFL and the NFL punished him. But should we go so far to say that Brady Quinn should get sued (Well I personally hate Brady Quinn so...)? I think all athletes realize these inherent risks that being in the sport.
The biggest effect I think this decision would have had is in hockey. One of the most entertaining reasons people watch hockey is for the fights. Obviously, if you fight someone on the street, you've committed a tort (and probably a crime). But when you do it in hockey, it's not only commonly done, but fans expect it.
My Torts professor joked about this, but we as a society really do put a high societal value on recreation and professional sports. It's becomes ingrained as a fabric of out lives). DME does nothing BUT talk about sports (rather baseball). All four blog authors spend a lot of time (too much) watching and writing about sports. Sports are the reason we download podcasts, buy things, watch TV, go out. We really do value sports heavily and as a result, the law treats sports differently.
Going back to the original case the court talks about the necessity for not siding with Avila; for saying that pitcher's need to pitch inside. Think about if the law really did punish athletes for things that are normally torts everywhere else? This really would change the way pitcher's pitch and batter's hit. These qualitative aspects would screw up the quantitative analysis we love so much. We, society along with the four blog authors, really would be upset if the law intervened too much in sports (Hell. we get made when they hold hearing on steroids). We really do put a high societal value.
If you've learned anything from this post, I hope at least you've learned that judges also believe that a pitcher should be allowed to pitch inside
