Batter Can't Sue for Getting Hit

[Grid Iron]

Interesting case. I think all the case says is that schools can't be held liable for a player intentionally hitting another player.

I think that If someone intentionally throws a baseball at your head and you have a serious disability because of it, the thrower should be on the hook for your medical bills.

Now I don't believe the school and coaches should have to pay, but the little b*tch that threw at the guy's head should have to pay up. If you don't want to pay for someone's health care, throw it over the plate or his leg. The head just ain't right.

For the lawyers out there, the full opinion can be found here:

hxxp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S119575.DOC

Calif. high court balks at `beanball' pitch lawsuit
04/06/2006
By David Kravets
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - A community college baseball player cannot sue to recover damages from the opposing school even though he was intentionally beaned in the head by a pitch, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 Thursday.

``Being hit by a pitch is an inherent risk of baseball,'' Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority. It is ``so accepted by custom that a pitch intentionally thrown at a batter has it's own terminology: `brushback,' `beanball,' `chin music.' ''

Jose Avila, of the Rio Hondo Roadrunners, was 19 when he was hit in the head by a pitch in a game against the Citrus Community College Owls in 2001.

The pitch, which cracked his helmet, was thrown in retaliation after the Roadrunners pitcher hit an Owls batter.

Avila now suffers from sporadic seizures, and sued the Citrus Community College District alleging, among other things, it was negligent for failing to control its pitcher.

Citing a long line of cases, the justices reversed an appeals court that ruled Avila could sue for damages. The Supreme Court and lawmakers have historically sided against those participating in sporting events or recreational activities where injury is a foreseeable risk.

In dissent, Justice Joyce Kennard lambasted her colleagues.

``The majority holds that a baseball pitcher owes no duty to refrain from intentionally throwing a baseball at an opposing player's head. This is a startling conclusion,'' Kennard wrote, citing the official rules of Major League Baseball, which does not permit such conduct.

But the majority countered, saying the rule book doesn't matter.

A suit seeking damages from the Rio Hondo Community College District, alleging its coaches did not properly attend to its student player's medical needs, is pending.

The case decided Thursday is Avila v. Citrus Community College District, S119575.

[ISiddiqui]

It's part of the game. Intentional throwing at a batter to get him off the plate or for retaliation or something is integral to baseball. You knew, or should have known, this was the case when you signed up.

I don't disagree with the verdict.

Though if there was an intent to injure the guy, that may be a different issue (even though he was thrown at in the head, that doesn't necessarily mean the other team wanted to injure him).

[NoMyths]

There's no suing in baseball!

[Logan]

How did they prove the intent of the pitcher? Did he come out and say he threw at the kid as retaliation?

[Galaxy]

Don't they sign injury release waivers?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's part of the game. Intentional throwing at a batter to get him off the plate or for retaliation or something is integral to baseball. You knew, or should have known, this was the case when you signed up.

I don't disagree with the verdict.

Though if there was an intent to injure the guy, that may be a different issue (even though he was thrown at in the head, that doesn't necessarily mean the other team wanted to injure him).

Completely disagree. You absolutely do not throw at someone's head, even in retaliation. And the thought that someone didn't realize serious injury was a possible result of doing so is absurd.

Throwing at someone's head? You might as well tell someone they look like they've got a case of the Mondays.

[ISiddiqui]

How many times does someone like Roger Clemens throw at people's heads? Players know they have to watch out for that. It's part of the game.

[Greyroofoo]

I don't care if its "part of the game" or not. People who intentionally try to injure other people in baseball should be prosecuted.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I don't care if its "part of the game" or not. People who intentionally try to injure other people in baseball should be prosecuted.

As said in the article, there is a long line of case law backing this decision. One can argue that in the NFL there are tackles which are designed to hurt a player and take him out of the game. Defense wants to take the opposing QB out... should the QB sue if he does get taken out?

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As said in the article, there is a long line of case law backing this decision. One can argue that in the NFL there are tackles which are designed to hurt a player and take him out of the game. Defense wants to take the opposing QB out... should the QB sue if he does get taken out?

Just because there is a long line of cases backing the decision doesn't make it right. One justice disagreed, in fact. Moreover, the case deals more with the liability of the college than the perpetrator.

A linebacker tackling a QB is entirely different than a pitcher intentionally throwing at a player's head (sure sometimes the ball gets away).

Let's say a huge linebacker picks up a small wide receiver, lifts him over his head, then slams him over his knee, then onto the ground breaking his back. Should he be immune from liability because he was just trying to "take him out" which is part of the game?

What about choking a player into unconsciousness at the bottom of a pile of guys fighting for a fumble?

I don't see any difference between doing those things and intentionally throwing a hard object at someone's head at 95-100mph.

Of course, whether someone can prove a pitcher intentionally threw at someone's head is always going to be difficult to prove, but that's a different issue.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How many times does someone like Roger Clemens throw at people's heads? Players know they have to watch out for that. It's part of the game.

How many times do dirtbags rob people who are out for dinner in a big city? People know they have to watch out for that. It's part of living in a big city.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's say a huge linebacker picks up a small wide receiver, lifts him over his head, then slams him over his knee, then onto the ground breaking his back. Should he be immune from liability because he was just trying to "take him out" which is part of the game?

What about choking a player into unconsciousness at the bottom of a pile of guys fighting for a fumble?

I don't see any difference between doing those things and intentionally throwing a hard object at someone's head at 95-100mph.

One being an accepted part (and risk) of a game and the others not? Now the linebacker slamming the WR to the ground (but not over his knee like some wrestling move) to "take him out", probably would not be actionable, just as a very hard tackle against the opposing QB, when you've blindsided him isn't.

[sabotai]

I agree. Todd Bertuzzi shows what a viloent and barbaric sport hockey is compared to a good, wholesome sport like baseball.


Oh I'm sorry, wrong thread.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One being an accepted part (and risk) of a game and the others not? Now the linebacker slamming the WR to the ground (but not over his knee like some wrestling move) to take him out, probably would not be actionable.

How is the wrestling move not an accepted risk in football, but getting a baseball thrown intentionally at your head an accepted risk in baseball?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm actually interested in finding some analytical difference.

If being hit intentionally (and the key word is intentionally) in the head is truly an "accepted risk," why do teams retaliate/clear the benches/rush the mound? It seems to me that brawls and retaliation indicates that players find throwing a people's heads to be unacceptable.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

How is the wrestling move not an accepted risk in football, but getting a baseball thrown intentionally at your head an accepted risk in baseball?

The legal issue is assumption of risk, not intent to injure (otherwise boxing wouldn't be legal). It's pretty obvious that when you step into a batter's box, you have a greater risk of someone intentionally hitting your head then a wide receiver's risk of having wrestling move peformed on him. If the latter was more commonplace, than yes, the wide receiver probably assumes that risk by playing. So that's the distinction.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by molson

The legal issue is assumption of risk, not intent to injure (otherwise boxing wouldn't be legal). It's pretty obvious that when you step into a batter's box, you have a greater risk of someone intentionally hitting your head then a wide receiver's risk of having wrestling move peformed on him. If the latter was more commonplace, than yes, the wide receiver probably assumes that risk by playing. So that's the distinction.

But in boxing, there is an assumption that the other person is going to try to injure you by hitting you in the head. That's the point of the sport--to knock the other guy out.

I just don't agree that a player who steps into a batters box assumes a risk that the pitcher will intentionally hit him in the head. Getting hit in the head isn't the point of the sport.

Again, if being hit intentionally in the head is truly an "accepted risk," why do teams retaliate/clear the benches/rush the mound? It seems to me that brawls and retaliation indicates that players find throwing at people's heads to be unacceptable.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

How is the wrestling move not an accepted risk in football, but getting a baseball thrown intentionally at your head an accepted risk in baseball?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm actually interested in finding some analytical difference.

If being hit intentionally (and the key word is intentionally) in the head is truly an "accepted risk," why do teams retaliate/clear the benches/rush the mound? It seems to me that brawls and retaliation indicates that players find throwing a people's heads to be unacceptable.

Are you serious? How many times have you seen a wrestling move being done in a football game? In contrast, how many times have you seen brushbacks, chin music, headhunting, etc in baseball? Oh, speaking of brawls from clearing the benches... that's an accepted risk as well (ie, I don't think you'd be successful suing the other player for battery from the brawl). Brawls themselves don't show an activity is unaccepted. Constant usage shows if it is.

Everyone knows that it is done in baseball. Pitchers throw at people's heads. It is part of the game so much that, as the opinion states, there are various nicknames for the activity!

And what precedent flows forth from an opposite ruling? Can a hockey player sue another one for throwing down the gloves and hitting him? Can he sue for getting absolutely destroyed for going down the middle of the ice with his head down? Can a football player sue when the opposing team said they are going to try to take him out... and they eventually do (if you don't think the other defense is trying to take your team's star QB [if your team has one], then you are in another world)?

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are you serious? How many times have you seen a wrestling move being done in a football game? In contrast, how many times have you seen brushbacks, chin music, headhunting, etc in baseball? Oh, speaking of brawls from clearing the benches... that's an accepted risk as well (ie, I don't think you'd be successful suing the other player for battery from the brawl). Brawls themselves don't show an activity is unaccepted. Constant usage shows if it is.

Everyone knows that it is done in baseball. Pitchers throw at people's heads. It is part of the game so much that, as the opinion states, there are various nicknames for the activity!

And what precedent flows forth from an opposite ruling? Can a hockey player sue another one for throwing down the gloves and hitting him? Can he sue for getting absolutely destroyed for going down the middle of the ice with his head down? Can a football player sue when the opposing team said they are going to try to take him out... and they eventually do (if you don't think the other defense is trying to take your team's star QB [if your team has one], then you are in another world)?

Just because someone does it doesn't mean it is an accepted risk.

Why hasn't anyone responded to my point about players retaliating and brawling if someone gets hit in the head? If it's an accepted risk, why would anyone be upset?

[illinifan999]

Funny story, I had a dream about this last week. Except it was the continuation of a dream from a year ago. Last year's dream was actually beaning the guy, the last dream was reading the paper about the lawsuit. Weird.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

Just because someone does it doesn't mean it is an accepted risk.

Why hasn't anyone responded to my point about players retaliating and brawling if someone gets hit in the head? If it's an accepted risk, why would anyone be upset?

I just did. Why would anyone be upset if their QB was hit very hard by the defensive lineman (which coaches do get)? Simply because someone gets upset, doesn't mean it isn't risk that has been accepted when you decided the play the game.

And yes, just because it is done regularly, and people know it is done regularly, in the sport means you have accepted the risk.

[MrBug708]

Interesting. Not so much the subject but I did my JC work at Citrus and took two summer school classes at Rio Hondo

[Butter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Defense wants to take the opposing QB out... should the QB sue if he does get taken out?

Yes, I think Carson Palmer should be allowed to sue.

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

Now I don't believe the school and coaches should have to pay, but the little b*tch that threw at the guy's head should have to pay up. If you don't want to pay for someone's health care, throw it over the plate or his leg. The head just ain't right.

Now what if some horrible knee injury occurred? Or what if the coach (employed by the school) told the pitcher to do it?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How many times does someone like Roger Clemens throw at people's heads?

Pretty much never.

What was your point again?

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I just did. Why would anyone be upset if their QB was hit very hard by the defensive lineman (which coaches do get)? Simply because someone gets upset, doesn't mean it isn't risk that has been accepted when you decided the play the game.

QBs getting hit by linemen is part of the game and not against the rules. Intentionally throwing at player's head is against the rules in MLB. Players can get ejected for it.

How can behavior that is expressly prohibited be considered an "accepted risk"?

(And to be consistent, I would allow the player who crushes the receivers back with a wrestling move to sue.)

Remember Romanowski payed $400k to Williams after he smashed him in the face during practice. So, there is precedent that players can be held liable for intentionally inflicted injuries.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And yes, just because it is done regularly, and people know it is done regularly, in the sport means you have accepted the risk.

Since when is intentionally throwing at someone's head done "regularly"?

It maybe happens once or twice a season.

I suspect that if players could sue for getting intentionally hit, all these $10 million pitchers wouldn't do it any more.

They should at least let players sue AL pitchers who never have to get in the batter's box.

[Glengoyne]

Hey what about that guy that John Chaney had hacked last year? Can he sue?

Don't I wish he could.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

Again, if being hit intentionally in the head is truly an "accepted risk," why do teams retaliate/clear the benches/rush the mound? It seems to me that brawls and retaliation indicates that players find throwing at people's heads to be unacceptable.

It's a decent argument, and it might work in some courts. This incident is right in the grey area - the outcome of a case like this would probably come down to who had the better lawyer. I'm just saying that there's more risk of getting hit in the head then there is being subject to a WWE backbreaker in football, and that there's a better assumption of risk case in the baseball incident.

[dawgfan]

This is a sticky issue - while I acknowledge that getting beaned intentionally is an inherent risk in playing baseball, that doesn't mean I feel that the pitcher who intentionally does so should be immune from the full repurcussions of his actions.

However, the problem inherent with this line of thinking is that, if a court were to uphold the idea that he is liable if the action were intentional (and there's no way it would hold up if any beanball were deemed liable to legal action), you'd quickly find that nobody would ever admit to intentionally trying to hit someone in the head. And, unlike a pro wrestling move performed in a football tackle, there's no objective way to prove intent one way or another with a beanball without an admission by the pitcher.

What's kind of been glossed over in this thread is that this is only part of the injured player's legal strategy - seems to me the stronger case to pursue is the allegation that the school didn't address his injury adequately.

[JS19]

Agree with many others here, it's part of the game. Been playing baseball all my life and I remember an instance when I was playing at my Comm College not too long ago when we had this conversation. As far as I remember all of us agreed that it's part of the game. Something that you know can happen while playing.

[Vince]

I think that intentionally beaning someone should have no penalty. I think that thworing (which is like throwing, only different) at someone's head should pose a penalty enforced within the game. Taking it to a court of law is rather absurd, as anyone playing a sport knows that they are putting themselves at risk of bodily injury.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

QBs getting hit by linemen is part of the game and not against the rules. Intentionally throwing at player's head is against the rules in MLB. Players can get ejected for it.

How can behavior that is expressly prohibited be considered an "accepted risk"?

If it is prohibited, yet done quite often, of course it is an accepted risk! What, do you think someone can sue for getting hurt in a hockey fight? After all, fighting is prohibited in hockey! You get a penalty for it!

Remember Romanowski payed $400k to Williams after he smashed him in the face during practice. So, there is precedent that players can be held liable for intentionally inflicted injuries.

People (and firms) settle all the time, even if they believe they'd win, to simply prevent any lawsuit, which may cost more than the amount they'd save.

Since when is intentionally throwing at someone's head done "regularly"?

It maybe happens once or twice a season.

I believe it happens more than that (though pitchers say, no I never meant to do that, etc), but even then, that's regularly enough so that there are various nicknames given to the practice! I mean if it was considered rare, would you have all these names attached to it?

As JS19 has said, players know the risks. The next pitch could be in your ear (as pointed out in "Field of Dreams" to Moonlight Graham... the practice is so well known, it is in baseball movies).

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Grid Iron

But in boxing, there is an assumption that the other person is going to try to injure you by hitting you in the head. That's the point of the sport--to knock the other guy out.

I just don't agree that a player who steps into a batters box assumes a risk that the pitcher will intentionally hit him in the head. Getting hit in the head isn't the point of the sport.

Again, if being hit intentionally in the head is truly an "accepted risk," why do teams retaliate/clear the benches/rush the mound? It seems to me that brawls and retaliation indicates that players find throwing at people's heads to be unacceptable.

Well, it's generally harder to hit a pitch that is inside than one on the outside part of the plate. Hitters try to crowd the plate, pitchers try to keep them honest. It's a clearly defined battle line.

If a pitcher is winning the battle, he's hitting his spots and the ump is calling strikes. If the batter is winning those will be balls and the pitcher will have to move outside.

When the benches clear it's an attempt by the hitters to gain an edge in the strike zone war. At best, the pitcher might be tossed, at worst, the strike zone moves outside a bit more either because the pitcher decides it's not worth risking a pitch getting away from him or the ump moves the zone to keep the game under control.

I've always viewed the bench clearing brawls as posturing and rarely does it ever last beyond the game and become an issue other than being shown on ESPN.

I think using this argument as validation that the beanball is unacceptable as a custom is not valid. There would have to be way more follow through by the concerned players for me to accept that.

Anyone know of any movements by the players to truly make the the practice globally unacceptable? I don't know of one.

[Huckleberry]

I think lots of people are confusing throwing at a batter with throwing at his head. I have thrown at a batter. I have been thrown at by a pitcher. If for a second I had thought they were throwing at my head then there would have been an asskicking. Maybe mine, maybe theirs, but there definitely would have been an asskicking.

[Travis]

As regards the backbreaker on the WR, I'd equate that much more to the batter bringing his bat with him while charging the mound and using it to attack the pitcher with.

As far as throwing at a players head intentionally, it's bad form, but it's a part of the game. No matter how hard a pitcher throws, the batter has protection to begin with, and also has a chance to duck/drop/roll with the pitch to avoid injury. It's not normal for a pitcher to intentionally throw at a guys head without provocation, and as a player, you generally have a pretty good feel for whether or not a pitcher might have reason to be throwing at you. A lot of players (both professional and amateur) fail to protect themselves by using batting styles that are based on large body movements which reduce their ability to react to an incoming pitch if in fact it is coming at them and not in the hitting zone.

Personally, I never threw at a guys head. In large part because it's easier to get out of the way of, and if I want to send a message, I either threw a brush back (chest region) to clear him off the plate, or if it was in retaliation for something, I went for the ribs as it's one of the few areas that most batters aren't wearing body armor.

As far as the individual case cited above goes, how far back do you trace the line of responsibility? Was the first player hit intentionally, and if so, does the responsibility then fall on whoever decided that (whether it was the pitcher or manager)? If the first guy was hit intentionally, you could almost bet at the time that the same would be done in turn.

[Grid Iron]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What, do you think someone can sue for getting hurt in a hockey fight?

Absolutely.

hxxp://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=402041

Moore's first lawsuit in the U.S. wasn't thrown out because of an "accepted risk." It was thrown due to venue--the attack was in Canada, and most of the witnesses were there, so the judge said they need to file it there (it was filed in the U.S. due to tort law that favors plaintiffs).

This case may very well decide the issue we're arguing about, but I suspect Berty will settle it for $1 million plus.

The problem with saying such-and-such conduct is an accepted risk is that it is entirely subjective.

Hypothetically, what if I could prove that Roger Clemens threw a pitch at Andruw Jones' head with the specific intent to kill him (e.g. a diary entry indicating that he wanted to marry Jones' wife and needed him out of the way so he was going to kill him with a pitch to the head).

Should he not be charged with attempted murder? What if Andruw did die? Is Clemens immune from prosecution because beanballs are "part of the game"?

This hypothetical illustrates that intent has to be considered when deciding if certain conduct is an "accepted risk." Not just the conduct itself.

[Greyroofoo]

So if a pitcher hits a batter in the head with a pitch, shouldn't the batter also be able to whack the pitcher in the head with the baseball bat?

[Travis]

You can't use the Bertuzzi/Moore incident as a comparitive issue to the beanball. That was not a hockey fight. That was a calculated attack by Bertuzzi. It wasn't like the two squared off and Bertuzzi just beat him up so bad that it was criminal.

As for the batters taking the bat to the mound with them, they could try, but they better be swinging the entire way there as I could promise you that he would be mobbed by the entire opposing team and I seriously doubt many on his own team would come to his aid if that were the case.

There are not just the rules to the sports, but also the all powerful "code". As a player you tend to know the letter of that code and abide by it for the most part. It's when people take it too far (ie: Bringing a bat to a fistfight) that things really get out of hand, and that tends to be when pitchers will retaliate by throwing for a guys head rather than throwing a brushback or a body shot.

It's also the fact that when your in the batters box that you know that any single pitch could end up hitting you between the eyes (whether intentional or if the pitch gets away), while charging the mound with a piece of lumber in your hands is ridiculous.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So if a pitcher hits a batter in the head with a pitch, shouldn't the batter also be able to whack the pitcher in the head with the baseball bat?

...and if he does, could he get sued?

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by BrianD

...and if he does, could he get sued?

exactly, I mean if I was a pitcher I would expect it to be 'part of the game'

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

exactly, I mean if I was a pitcher I would expect it to be 'part of the game'

You can't really fault a batter for being a bit confused after getting hit in the head with a baseball. Even with a helmet, that has to ring his bell a bit. I'm sure he normally wouldn't mean to bring the bat with him...

[Travis]

I'm honestly curious at this point, Greyroofoo, did you (or currently?) play baseball growing up? If so, to what age/level?

Just curious because I know around here (where baseball isn't exactly mainstream), I've spent a lot of time with friends of mine who never played/really watched much baseball before, explaining a lot of the small things that go on between plays, as the game develops, etc, etc that draw me so much into the game that you would have a hard time picking up as a casual observer, especially if you never played.

That said, I also believe that a lot of the mentality (especially the acceptance that each and every pitch has the chance to come to rest squarely between your eyes) of the sport is different than that of hockey/football/basketball. Just wondering if that is part of the opposing view points on this discussion I guess.

[Huckleberry]

Sorry, that's a nice theory but it doesn't wash. I played plenty of baseball. I didn't play professionally but discuss baseball with former pro players.

Throwing at a batter is one thing. Intentionally throwing at someone's head is another matter entirely. When Warren Sapp obliterated the Packers lineman with a legal block he caught hell. Obviously that is a known risk of football, but there were still problems with it for some people. Now imagine that Sapp had intentionally dived with his full weight into the side of the lineman's knee. Known risk of football. But it would have been disgusting and unacceptable and I know I would have supported the guy suing Sapp. Suing the NFL is another matter.

[Travis]

I guess personally, I'd much rather see a crackdown on catcher hits at home plate, ejections for guys who go for players knees when sliding (the good old spikes up slide), hand stepping and that sort of stuff. Those are the sort of dirty plays that you have a much harder time protecting yourself from than somebody throwing a fastball at your head.

Yes it's dirty, no it shouldn't be done, but good luck ever trying to prove the intent. All a pitcher has to do is tell you that he was going for the shoulder and it got away from him. Ejecting a pitcher because of any pitch that is up and in would turn a sport that is already turning into a glorified home run derby that much more of a farce. Giving players the right to sue for the same, well, you may as well make the game coach pitch at that point.