# Woman sues little leaguer for getting hit with baseball.. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 22, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987 "2012-06-22T20:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/21 "2012-06-23T19:12:42Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > That wasn’t really your original question. But, one, was she in the stands? It says she was at a picnic table. Is there a colorable claim that assumption of risk shouldn’t apply in this instance given facts? Probably. Enough to get by sanctions or even a summary judgment. > > Two, as a practical matter, we don’t really file many motions for sanctions. That’s a good way to piss off the judge and have other lawyers gun for you. There, but for the grace of Og, go you. > > Finally, I assume New Jersey allows a claimant to plead contradicting/alternative theories of recovery. The intentional claim is probably included to avoid dealing with the assumption of risk in an initial pleading. As you directly pointed out, the negligence claim is to get the insurance carrier involved. So, the carrier hires an attorney to defend the case. But, as you know, the attorney’s client calls the shots. The family doesn’t want to deal with the intentional conduct case alone without the insurance company footing the bill. So, it creates a divisive relationship. The attorney does not want to plead the client out of coverage. Therefore, no motion for sanctions or even, possibly a summary judgment is every pleaded. > > Cost of defense settlement, maybe more if there’s a unique factual distinction to argue. This assumes there’s not some wacky twist to NJ liability or coverage law. Sadly, because of clerking this summer and last summer, I understand that this is how it works in real life. But of course I’m going to change the world (not really) and when I do, lawyers will be sanctioned for this kind of conduct. The picnic table was another case posted by another poster. This lady was in the freaking stands. [Quote=AK84] Clearly there is a duty of care and certainly several persons had it. Assumption of risk is a factual issue here rather than a legal one. [/quote] I don’t have the torts book in front of me, but spectator at a sporting event getting hit by a wayward ball/puck was case #1 for assumption of risk and judgment as a matter of law. And it further stated that in modern times assumption of risk is under “no duty” instead of contributory negligence since states don’t like the latter anymore. In other words, a stadium owner, a player, a coach, etc. has “no duty” to protect a spectator from an errant ball. [QUOTE=Dewey Finn] Again, IANAL, but if the kid’s actions were intentional and the insurance won’t pay, I assume that she expects the parents to do so. [/QUOTE] At common law, parents are not responsible for their children’s torts. Usually negligent supervision is plead, but I can’t see how that would work in this case. I don’t know about NJ, but WV has a statutory provision that says parents are responsible up to $5k for their kids’ intentional torts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/22 "2012-06-23T19:43:04Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > That wasn’t really your original question. But, one, was she in the stands? It says she was at a picnic table. Is there a colorable claim that assumption of risk shouldn’t apply in this instance given facts? Probably. Enough to get by sanctions or even a summary judgment. > > Two, as a practical matter, we don’t really file many motions for sanctions. That’s a good way to piss off the judge and have other lawyers gun for you. There, but for the grace of Og, go you. > > Finally, I assume New Jersey allows a claimant to plead contradicting/alternative theories of recovery. The intentional claim is probably included to avoid dealing with the assumption of risk in an initial pleading. As you directly pointed out, the negligence claim is to get the insurance carrier involved. So, the carrier hires an attorney to defend the case. But, as you know, the attorney’s client calls the shots. The family doesn’t want to deal with the intentional conduct case alone without the insurance company footing the bill. So, it creates a divisive relationship. The attorney does not want to plead the client out of coverage. Therefore, no motion for sanctions or even, possibly a summary judgment is every pleaded. > > Cost of defense settlement, maybe more if there’s a unique factual distinction to argue. This assumes there’s not some wacky twist to NJ liability or coverage law. Pardon me for sticking my nose where I have zero experience, but couldn’t the family just file a boilerplate answer to avoid a default judgement and let the plaintiff hang herself trying the intentional conduct? ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/23 "2012-06-23T20:16:03Z")
Jtgain, from your linked article " Lloyd was sitting at a picnic table near a fenced-in bullpen when she was hit with the ball." Bricker, not sure I’m following, but it’s my problem due to dos, solamente dos margaritas. If both the intentional and negligence claims were brought, I’d expect a general denial, if allowed in NJ, but the insurance company would expect a summary judgment. The actual client would not likely want one due to coverage reasons, but the case will take 5,000 to 10,000 just to get to trial on a straightforward issue, and that’s conservative ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/24 "2012-06-23T21:08:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > At common law, parents are not responsible for their children’s torts. Usually negligent supervision is plead, but I can’t see how that would work in this case. I don’t know about NJ, but WV has a statutory provision that says parents are responsible up to $5k for their kids’ intentional torts. New Jersey has also repealed the common law rule, but only for property damage: N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A. Interestingly, NJ has also created a specific statutory assumption-of-risk doctrine for professional baseball games, but not for other sporting events (including amateur baseball games): N.J. Stat. § 2A:53A-46. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/25 "2012-06-24T15:10:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Pardon me for sticking my nose where I have zero experience, but couldn’t the family just file a boilerplate answer to avoid a default judgement and let the plaintiff hang herself trying the intentional conduct? From my (very) limited experience, they simply don’t do that. If I understand your question, you are wondering why the insurance company doesn’t file for summary judgment for the negligence claim and let the family fend for themselves on the intentional claim. That would make sense, but it’s just not done. They have a duty to defend until intentional conduct is shown (by a verdict) and they take that duty seriously and don’t try to screw the client in that manner. I say “screw” but agree with you that it would be a legitimate move from a business perspective. They may want to insulate themselves from a bad faith tort claim. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/26 "2012-06-24T15:19:51Z")
I’d like to throw a baseball at her face. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/27 "2012-06-24T15:35:14Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I’d like to throw a baseball at her face. I suspect she could make more money having balls chucked at her in a carnival than from the lawsuit. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/28 "2012-06-24T15:39:07Z")
(: I feel sorry for that boy’s family. It costs money to defend a lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/29 "2012-06-24T17:27:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > From my (very) limited experience, they simply don’t do that. If I understand your question, you are wondering why the insurance company doesn’t file for summary judgment for the negligence claim and let the family fend for themselves on the intentional claim. > > That would make sense, but it’s just not done. They have a duty to defend until intentional conduct is shown (by a verdict) and they take that duty seriously and don’t try to screw the client in that manner. I say “screw” but agree with you that it would be a legitimate move from a business perspective. They may want to insulate themselves from a bad faith tort claim. There is no duty to defend here. The kid and parents are unlikely to have any sort of insurance coverage for this sort of occurrence. Dewey’s post suggests that the parents’ homeowners’ policy will cover it, but homeowners’ policies are generally limited to coverage of things which occur on the covered property. The ballpark’s liability policy will not include a duty to defend anyone other than the ballpark itself and its employees. Probably the little league team or league will have coverage, including a duty to defend provision, but its terms may limit coverage and duty to defend to the league/team and their volunteers. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/30 "2012-06-24T17:37:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Dewey’s post suggests that the parents’ homeowners’ policy will cover it, but homeowners’ policies are generally limited to coverage of things which occur on the covered property. Whaaa? Homeowners/renters insurance typically covers negligent acts committed anywhere in the world, except in an automobile or on other property owned by the insured. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/31 "2012-06-24T17:48:28Z")
The husband is also suing the kid because he feels his wife can no longer provide her bedroom duties. Let that sink in for a minute. Unless this woman has this kid on tape saying “Watch me hit that stupid woman in the face!,” they should be laughed out of court. Preferably to a “Blow me!” chorus from onlookers. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987/32 "2012-06-24T18:02:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The husband is also suing the kid because he feels his wife can no longer provide her bedroom duties. Let that sink in for a minute. Consortium claims are fairly typical where the lead plaintiff is a married person. It’s just a way to build up exposure and add settlement value. > [@jtgain](#): > > Whaaa? Homeowners/renters insurance typically covers negligent acts committed anywhere in the world, except in an automobile or on other property owned by the insured. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes, the personal liability portion of the policy covers negligent acts off property, but not intentional torts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-sues-little-leaguer-for-getting-hit-with-baseball/625987.md?page=1)