Facemasks

[riseball]

I don't see any way a parent could win a suit against a rec league for requiring face masks. If a face mask fails they could possibly sue the face mask manufacturer. But a rec league for requiring them? No. I'm guessing a judge would just throw that out. It makes no sense.

Given the deep pockets and vast financial resources of most rec leagues I am sure their team of lawyers would quickly squash any litigation.

 

[grcsftbll]

Haha, yeah. The desperate emails we get begging for coaches point to those vast resources. Definitely a great target for a lawsuit.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

I would be careful about making fielder's masks mandatory. There is no national safety standard for fielder's masks as there are for batting helmets and batting facemasks. Batting helmets have the NOCASE testing and standards the batting helmets and facemasks must meet. If a girl gets hurt wearing a fielding mask I'm sure there is an attorney who love to take the case and sue the financial pants off of your league.

My suggestion is to "STRONGLY URGE" the parents to have their DD's wear fielding masks. Then consult your league's attorney and ask them about the legal liabilities regarding fielding masks. It's sad in this day and age that you have to think like that. But you have the financial welfare of a 700 player league to look out for. What seems like a common sense action by the league could end up being detrimental to the league.

No. I've already been through this with my attorney, and Ohio state law is very clear: participation in a recreational sporting activity is entirely voluntary, and as such there is no liability on the part of the league or the coaches. There is already case law on this, ruled on by the state supreme court. I will not be intimidated by anyone, not even the overly litigious, in my pursuit of safety for the girls.

People can sue for anything, but this one would be an immediate loser. You don't need national safety standards here, and since there are none it is a state's rights issue.

NOCSAE is not going to protect anyone from a lawsuit: it is a private organization performing voluntary testing, not a federal standards department.

 

[RetiredCoach]

This is my biggest fear about having a pitcher. Your story is scary but encouraging too. My DD is never on the field without a mask. It's just not worth the risk. To think how that might have turned out had your dd not been wearing hers... Terrifying.

As I think many people on this forum know, in 10U my DD took a hard line drive off her face without a mask. It was a terrible day. She gave up pitching--we thought forever--but it ended up to be for many months. And she's struggled with fear of the ball for years. She is now second year 14U and is an ace pitcher and most of her ball fear is gone now. And no doubt, she always has her face mask on when she's pitching.

Does anyone need to know where I stand on face masks?

 

[cuzmail]

No. I've already been through this with my attorney, and Ohio state law is very clear: participation in a recreational sporting activity is entirely voluntary, and as such there is no liability on the part of the league or the coaches. There is already case law on this, ruled on by the state supreme court. I will not be intimidated by anyone, not even the overly litigious, in my pursuit of safety for the girls.

People can sue for anything, but this one would be an immediate loser. You don't need national safety standards here, and since there are none it is a state's rights issue.

NOCSAE is not going to protect anyone from a lawsuit: it is a private organization performing voluntary testing, not a federal standards department.

While you may be correct on the above statements ( I have no idea about Ohio law ). These things come to mind. You may or may not agree.
1) Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. So even if you are correct they could still face a lawsuit. It may not go too far, but it will still cost plenty to respond and go through the motions.
2) NOCSAE may not protect anyone, but it shows adherence to a minimum acceptable safety standard.
3) Not wearing a mask when they knew or should have known about the safety features shows an assumption of the risk and will reduce their potential award.
4) Wearing a mask also shows an assumption of the risk by the plaintiff reducing the award.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

While you may be correct on the above statements ( I have no idea about Ohio law ). These things come to mind. You may or may not agree.
1) Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. So even if you are correct they could still face a lawsuit. It may not go too far, but it will still cost plenty to respond and go through the motions.
2) NOCSAE may not protect anyone, but it shows adherence to a minimum acceptable safety standard.
3) Not wearing a mask when they knew or should have known about the safety features shows an assumption of the risk and will reduce their potential award.
4) Wearing a mask also shows an assumption of the risk by the plaintiff reducing the award.

1) I already said that. And again, there is already case law on the books in OH (and IL) - no attorney is going to touch this, but even if they did, face masks will not change anything on the liability side.
2) NOCSAE is a private organization, there's nothing "acceptable" about its standards except to itself and the helmet mfg's. The NFL player's union has openly criticized it for being in bed with mfg's, which is where the majority of NOCSAE funding comes from.
3&4) In Ohio, simply playing demonstrates assumption of risk, as evidenced by the case law. I had asked my attorney what our liability might be if a girl failed to wear a mask if it was required by the league. See below.

From my attorney:
"The rule is that when someone participates in a recreational sports activity, they assume the risk of suffering the injuries ordinarily associated with that sport. In order to recover, they have to prove that the defendant acted recklessly or that the injury was intentional.

"Whether the activity is organized, unorganized, supervised or unsupervised is immaterial to the standard of liability." (Marchetti v. Kalish (1990) 53 Ohio St. 3d 95.)

In other words, there is no claim for negligent supervision. That same case referred to an Illinois case where the court specifically held that the standard is not changed, even if the source of the injury is the violation of a safety rule. (Keller By & Through Keller v. Mols (1987) 156 Ill. App. 3d 235, 237.)"

I would argue that not requiring face masks could be considered reckless.

And apologies to the OP for the threadjack. Honestly, it was unintentional!

 

[cuzmail]

1) I already said that. And again, there is already case law on the books in OH (and IL) - no attorney is going to touch this, but even if they did, face masks will not change anything on the liability side.
2) NOCSAE is a private organization, there's nothing "acceptable" about its standards except to itself and the helmet mfg's. The NFL player's union has openly criticized it for being in bed with mfg's, which is where the majority of NOCSAE funding comes from.
3&4) In Ohio, simply playing demonstrates assumption of risk, as evidenced by the case law. I had asked him what our liability might be if a girl failed to wear a mask if it was required by the league. See below.

From my attorney:
"The rule is that when someone participates in a recreational sports activity, they assume the risk of suffering the injuries ordinarily associated with that sport. In order to recover, they have to prove that the defendant acted recklessly or that the injury was intentional.

"Whether the activity is organized, unorganized, supervised or unsupervised is immaterial to the standard of liability." (Marchetti v. Kalish (1990) 53 Ohio St. 3d 95.)

In other words, there is no claim for negligent supervision. That same case referred to an Illinois case where the court specifically held that the standard is not changed, even if the source of the injury is the violation of a safety rule. (Keller By & Through Keller v. Mols (1987) 156 Ill. App. 3d 235, 237.)"

I would argue that not requiring face masks could be considered reckless.

Like I said you may or may not agree.
However:
I think your NOSCAE stance is incorrect considering that some (if not all) the alphabet sanctioning bodies require NOSCAE standard face guards on helmets. This begins the status of acceptability. NOSCAE being a private organization is irrelevant.
There is always an attorney somewhere who would "touch this".

 

[riseball]

You guys know I'm the rec commish for a large-ish rec league (68 teams 6U-14U, over 700 girls). This past spring season I "strongly encouraged" the 10U and up coaches to require their players to wear masks in the infield. At the end of the season, we had 10 girls take batted balls off the masks, no concussions. At the end of season coaches' meetings, I was asked why I didn't make it a league rule by more than one coach.

This season, it will be a league rule for all infielders 10U and up to wear a fielder's mask.

How many in games vs practice?

 

[RetiredCoach]

Like I said you may or may not agree.
However:
I think your NOSCAE stance is incorrect considering that some (if not all) the alphabet sanctioning bodies require NOSCAE standard face guards on helmets. This begins the status of acceptability. NOSCAE being a private organization is irrelevant.
There is always an attorney somewhere who would "touch this".

Wow! Perhaps we need to start a new Discussion Group focused on the legal aspects of softball. This is not why I come here.

 

[cuzmail]

Wow! Perhaps we need to start a new Discussion Group focused on the legal aspects of softball. This is not why I come here.

All DFP members have the option to not read threads they don't like