Thursday, July 29, 2004

 

From The Stella Awards

FAIR -- OR FOUL?
by Randy Cassingham

Michael Licitra, 44, played catcher in the Over-35 Men's Slow-Pitch
Softball League in Garden City, Long Island, New York. During a league
playoff game for his team the "West Enders" in the fall of 2001, Licitra
says John Knowles, 39, crashed into him despite the "Pete Rose Rule",
more officially known as "Rule 11" in the Garden City League book, which
prohibits "avoidable" collisions. Licitra's leg was broken in the
collision with Knowles, requiring surgery to repair.

In America, INJURY + RULE = LAWSUIT! Yes, Licitra sued Knowles -- as
well as the Village of Garden City -- in New York Supreme Court,
demanding $2 million in damages for his injuries, based on the alleged
violation of the league rule.

Licitra's attorney Robert Morici says softball "is not a contact
sport," and that Licitra played under the assumption that the rules would
be followed.

The other side, of course, disagreed. "If we lose this case," said
Knowles' attorney, Robert Baxter, just before the trial began, "my
statement to everyone would be don't play sports in this county." He said
the case was "a joke" and that all athletes assume the risk of injury
when they play sports.

A motion to dismiss the case on that premise was rejected before
trial. The so-called "assumption of risk" in playing sports "[does] not
relieve the defendant from the obligation of using reasonable care to
guard against a risk which might reasonably be anticipated," ruled
Supreme Court Justice Bruce D. Alpert.

The "Pete Rose Rule" was born in the major leagues when Rose, playing
in the 1970 All-Star Game, crashed into catcher Ray Fosse. Fosse's
shoulder was injured enough that it affected his career. The rule states,
"If any player has possession of the ball, the runner MUST either slide,
avoid the fielder or surrender the tag." Violations may be punished up to
and including ejection from the game by the umpire. Knowles was not
ejected from the game.

In his testimony, Licitra said he was on the basepath and had just
thrown the ball when Knowles "veered one or two steps" off the base line
and "dove" into him head-first. Knowles' attorney said that his client
was merely sliding into home head-first -- exactly as Rule 11 requires.
The game's umpire, James Geasor, agreed that Knowles "did a hook slide to
try and touch the plate," but did not intentionally crash into the
catcher.

-v-

Pause here: how would YOU, as a member of the Court of Public Opinion,
rule in the case?

-v-

After a two-and-a-half-year grind through the court system, the six-
member jury in the case ruled ...the action in the game was fair.

"We didn't feel that [Knowles] was negligent," said the only juror
willing to comment on the case. "I felt the umpire was impartial."

"This play was nothing like the Pete Rose play," Knowles said after
the verdict was read. "It was an unfortunate play for sure. Sometimes,
playing sports, that will happen."

"I'm more impressed with the jury system now than ever," said Knowles'
lawyer, Robert Baxter. "Now you don't have to tell your kids that they
can't play sports in the county."

Yes, the system worked: a man was injured, thought maybe it was on
purpose, and he got his day in court. So what makes it Stella Awards
material? Trying to gouge his neighbors in town for a windfall: why
should the local taxpayers be on the hook for a $2 million judgement?
There was no indication that the town had any responsibility for the
injury, such as improperly maintaining the field; the only reason I can
see to include the Village of Garden City as a defendant is to be the
"deep pockets" -- to pay the multi-million-dollar judgment in case of a
victory. If anyone was responsible for the injury, it would only have
been Knowles. But as the jury ruled, no one was at fault: it was simply
an accident.

posted by Anne 7/29/2004 10:23:00 AM