Civil liability to the ump is probably zilch. He’d have to get a VERY sympathetic judge to buy a claim that you caused “pain and sufferring” with that kind of behavior.
If the other attendees wanted to sue you for ruining their softball game, I guess you could try that angle, but I doubt any judgement against you would exceed a week’s pay… and I doubt they could win. Never know, though.
In the state I used to live in, North Carolina, you could have been charged with “Issuing fighting words”. In most states, you could be charged with “Disturbing the peace” as well.
If you engage in conduct that is extreme and outrageous, transcending all bounds of decency tolerated by society, you could potentially be guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In New York, there is essentially no behavior that fits into this category. We tolerate anything! Also, the guy would have to have suffered severe emotional distress. Why do people always think there can be legal liability when there is no injury?
Yeah. And you have to remember that most umpires played sports themselves at one point in time. Athletes can be assumed to be tough enough to endure verbal assaults, having probably experienced worse than what in the locker room all throughout high school baseball.
Well, legally it doesn’t really matter what that particular guy would be able to tolerate - it’s what an average person would be able to tolerate. There’s an exception for groups of people that are clearly weak - like lil old ladies (obviously they haven’t met my grandma!). But he still has to show that he personally was injured in some way.
Just to claarify, the conduct must be unreasonable, and the plaintiff must show individual injury. So, conduct which is reasonable, but due to a special weakness of the plaintiff, causes harm would not give rise to liability, nor would conduct which was unreasonable, but due to the plaintiff’s unique strength did not harm him. Only conduct which was unreasonable, and caused individual harm, is actionable. Is that about right? (Assuming we are talking IIED here…)
A little confusing for a clarification! First of all, the conduct has to be really really unreasonable. But if the plaintiff is a member of a class which is especially sensitive (under common law rules, children, old people, and pregnant women) and the defendant knows this, then conduct which would be reasonable when dealing with ordinary people would be considering unreasonable. Does that make sense? You have to take the context into account when deciding whether the conduct was unreasonable. Calling a 3-year-old a fat jerk is different than calling a grown man one.
Right. I left the sensative plaintiff out of my thoughts. They are sort of off on their own, in my mind. Perhaps a counterclaim is in order for the mocking of the wired jaw? I just have this image of a fat ump screaming at our intrepid OP, who in turn is shouting back but can’t open his mouth. Add in a midget, and it would be comedy gold.
First of all, the conduct has to be really really unreasonable. But if the plaintiff is a member of a class which is especially sensitive (under common law rules, children, old people, and pregnant women) and the defendant knows this, then conduct which would be reasonable when dealing with ordinary people would be considering unreasonable. Does that make sense? You have to take the context into account when deciding whether the conduct was unreasonable. Calling a 3-year-old a fat jerk is different than calling a grown man one.