You are here: / / Umpire Assumed the Risk of Being Struck by a Bat Thrown by Batter

Umpire Assumed the Risk of Being Struck by a Bat Thrown by Batter

The Third Department determined that an umpire assumed the risk of being struck by a bat thrown by a batter as he ran toward first base. Had the bat been thrown intentionally or recklessly the assumption of the risk doctrine would not apply. There was no admissible evidence the bat was thrown recklessly (in anger):

Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, a participant, including an umpire, in a sport such as softball “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . Such risks include getting hit with a ball or a bat during a baseball game, particularly for an experienced participant … . That said, “participants are not deemed to have assumed risks resulting from the reckless or intentional conduct of others” … .

… [W]e find unpersuasive plaintiffs’ claim that getting hit with a bat is not an inherent risk in a slow pitch, 65-year-old and older softball game. Neither the age of the players nor the velocity of the pitch negates the readily apparent risk of a batter releasing the bat after a swing. The record shows that [plaintiff] has extensive experience as an umpire and no claim is made that defendant intentionally threw the bat at him. The issue distills to whether defendant recklessly threw the bat, creating a risk “‘over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport'” … . Morrisey v Haskell, 2015 NY Slip Op 08021, 3rd Dept 11-5-15

 

You might also like
THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized Dispute Resolution Program Is Reviewed Under the Appellate Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers (Not Under the Usual “Substantial Evidence” Standard)
ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.
COMPLAINT STATED NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN, A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE TOWN WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, AND IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE TOWN ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO ACT AS HE DID (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, AN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DEMONSTRATED DILIGENT EFFORTS TO FIND WORK AFTER HE WAS INJURED; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED HIS CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Injured When an Anvil Fell Out of a Co-Worker’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Opened the Tailgate to Retrieve a Hat—Because Retrieving the Hat Was Work-Related, Plaintiff Was Unable to Sue the Defendant In Negligence (Failure to Warn Re: the Anvil) Under the Theory that Placement of the Anvil in the Vehicle Was Not Work-Related
EXPOSURE TO AND CONTRACTION OF COVID-19 IN THE WORKPLACE IS AN UNUSUAL HAZARD WHICH IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMMPENSATION LAW; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF DECEDENT CONTRACTED COVID-19 AT HIS WORKPLACE (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Did Not Submit Employee Benefit Plan as Required by Workers’ Compensation Law 25 (4) (c)—Therefore the Employer Was Entitled to Reimbursement Only for the Workers’ Compensation Benefits Paid to the Employee and Not for the Amounts Paid Under the Employee Benefit Plan

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Sidewalk Dropoff Was a Trivial Defect Claimant Who Cannot Afford Child Care Is Unavailable for Work and Is Not Entitled...