THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I think what we (or players, or refs too) learn from these incidents is that the “assumed risk” is greater than they had thought before these incidents. Each such incident just widens possible expectations. Even if it shouldn’t happen, it would be stupid for players not to keep these incidents in the back of their head and prepare a little bit for them; the person who is right isn’t always the person unscathed.

When we are driving, we follow our rules, but we also keep an eye out for those who aren’t following theirs.

Legally, assumed risk is not cut and dried and is complicated.  As well, it can be waived, it can be modified in a contract, etc.  As well, different states/jurisdictions have different interpretations of assumed risk, etc.  For example, in some jurisdictions, homeowners on a golf course automatically assume the risk of getting hit by a golf ball and in other jurisdictions, they can sue a player for not exercising due care in playing (if you suck at golf, don’t play on a course where you can hit a house).  Sometimes responsibility can be shared by a party that assumes risk and a party that is negligent.  Sometimes one can assume risk (as in going to a ball game) but can still sue some other party if not enough due care is taken to prevent injuries to them.  Etc.

So legally, assumed risk often depends on how good a lawyer you can afford.

Great article on the pending Bertuzzi civil trial
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=342554a8-ae42-480a-8661-9be8efd4df1c&sponsor=

I suggest reading it all, but here are some excerpts:

…
Vicarious liability states the employer should have foreseen the possibility of risk and taken steps to prevent it.
...
Deciding what’s an acceptable risk of danger when suiting up for an NHL contest will be the key should the case proceed to trial, says a source with a legal background and knowledge of the situation. The source, who requested anonymity, told the Herald any trial will likely come down to the issue of what level of risk Moore assumed that night by simply suiting up against the Canucks in Vancouver.
...
“Being hit in the head from behind and having your head driven into the ice was unreasonable force,” says the source. “Moore will contend that, despite the risks involved, he should have expected protection from the Canucks management for their player making such an extraordinary assault.”
...
Moore winning his claim could set a benchmark in many jurisdictions for such cases for other players hurt by violent attacks during games.

The implications for the NHL are obvious to anyone who follows the sport. Should Moore be successful in establishing a legal precedent for accepted risk in games, it could well affect the league’s policy on allowing fighting or vigilante attacks. Knowing that he or his club could be held liable for unreasonable violence, a player might refuse to fight or follow a coach’s instructions to intimidate an opponent.

“The NHL could have avoided this,” says our source. “Knowing the level of tension involved in Moore’s hit on Naslund, they could have simply suspended Moore for the two remaining games against Vancouver. That would have solved it. But the league was so arrogant it thought nothing would come of the situation. That let it happen. Now, they’re in a position where it may rebound on them big time.”