Tortious Beanballs
Two jargon words in a single phrase.
A beanball, as suggested by the facts in Avila v Citrus Community College District, Ca. Supreme Ct. (Apr. 6, 2006) (pdf) (thanks to Howard for the pointer), is an intentional throw by the pitcher at a batter's head.
Now, as baby law students we are indoctrinated to parrot "intentionally causing an unwanted harmful or offensive contact" or paraphrases of same when discussing a battery.
In Avila, the California Supreme Court determined that because being intentionally hit is an inherent risk of the sport of baseball, in context there was no breach of duty by the school towards the athlete so beaned.
I'm not utterly swayed by the discussion of the court. Being a part of the game means it's expected, even condoned? If the holding is limited to certain facts, I might reluctantly agree. My expectation (ignorant of baseball) would have been that violent or punishable acts were not okay.
There are levels of "not okay" in sports. Players and coaches in basketball can rack up a certain number of technical fouls before the progressive fines start being accompanied by mandatory bans from games. Minor jostling is often not a penalty in most contact sports. And, of course, playing rugby has been compared to consent to assault with intent to maim.
When that one hockey player was charged for using his hockey stick on another player's head - from behind - with a "baseball style swing" that seemed like a case where violence had exceeded the acceptable bounds of the sport. "Assault with a weapon" was the charge, and although McSorley claimed he didn't intend to hurt the guy, in replay (over and over and over) it seemed pretty egregious.
Could a beanball be egregious? I wouldn't like to be hit by a pitch on purpose. At least the plaintiff in this case was a batter, in the box. What result, do you suppose, if the vindictive attack is on someone standing in the dugout? Standing on base with his back to the pitcher's mound? An umpire? Still part of the game?
Brush-backs (where the pitcher brings a pitch close inside the strike zone to force back a batter crowding the plate), accidental hits with a pitch, and the expected collisions between base runners and those attempting to stop them are part of the game. Apparently, so are pitches "forbidden by the rules of baseball" (!). See opinion at p.19, and fn. 10 ("It's not a weapon. It's a tactic.") If you say so. I think I'll stay out of the batter's box for a while.
[update: further coverage collected by Howard]
A beanball, as suggested by the facts in Avila v Citrus Community College District, Ca. Supreme Ct. (Apr. 6, 2006) (pdf) (thanks to Howard for the pointer), is an intentional throw by the pitcher at a batter's head.
Now, as baby law students we are indoctrinated to parrot "intentionally causing an unwanted harmful or offensive contact" or paraphrases of same when discussing a battery.
In Avila, the California Supreme Court determined that because being intentionally hit is an inherent risk of the sport of baseball, in context there was no breach of duty by the school towards the athlete so beaned.
I'm not utterly swayed by the discussion of the court. Being a part of the game means it's expected, even condoned? If the holding is limited to certain facts, I might reluctantly agree. My expectation (ignorant of baseball) would have been that violent or punishable acts were not okay.
There are levels of "not okay" in sports. Players and coaches in basketball can rack up a certain number of technical fouls before the progressive fines start being accompanied by mandatory bans from games. Minor jostling is often not a penalty in most contact sports. And, of course, playing rugby has been compared to consent to assault with intent to maim.
When that one hockey player was charged for using his hockey stick on another player's head - from behind - with a "baseball style swing" that seemed like a case where violence had exceeded the acceptable bounds of the sport. "Assault with a weapon" was the charge, and although McSorley claimed he didn't intend to hurt the guy, in replay (over and over and over) it seemed pretty egregious.
Could a beanball be egregious? I wouldn't like to be hit by a pitch on purpose. At least the plaintiff in this case was a batter, in the box. What result, do you suppose, if the vindictive attack is on someone standing in the dugout? Standing on base with his back to the pitcher's mound? An umpire? Still part of the game?
Brush-backs (where the pitcher brings a pitch close inside the strike zone to force back a batter crowding the plate), accidental hits with a pitch, and the expected collisions between base runners and those attempting to stop them are part of the game. Apparently, so are pitches "forbidden by the rules of baseball" (!). See opinion at p.19, and fn. 10 ("It's not a weapon. It's a tactic.") If you say so. I think I'll stay out of the batter's box for a while.
[update: further coverage collected by Howard]
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Thursday April 6, 2006 at 4:09pm
There is, still, some difference between a violation of a school's regulations, and what the law recognizes as tortious. Otherwise everytime the school changed its regulations, the level of care could alter.
That is, violation of a regulation will often be evidence of, but not proof of, a breach of duty.
And one more thing: just because a case gets dismissed doesn't mean behavior is approved of. (You wrote: "within accepted norms") Lots of activity which is (immoral, naughty, unpleasant, disgusting, sanctionable, upsetting, awful) nevertheless fails to run afoul of the law (criminal, or in this case civil - and different rules apply to each) because the behavior was protected, fails to meet the criteria of the tort or crime, or because there is insufficient proof.
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.