Would be get sue or be arrest if you hurt your opponent??

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by tyu1314

I am just wondering is it a crime if you hurt your opponent really bad with tennis shot ? Like a big smash into him at the net, are they able to call the cop on you?

Hello!! This is America. You can sue anyone for anything, if you can find a lawyer who will take the case. As far as winning, the legal system is not intimately associated with logic, so any ol' argument that convinces 4 individuals who can't get out of jury duty will do.

Spin the wheel, you might win big...

[3fees]

A Person can call a cop for anything or file a complaint for anything.

As too wether a person would be in trouble for hitting an opponent at the net,,answer is no, when the opponent comes in to the net for free points, he made the decision to waive safety of distance and take a chance, the net players risk of injury is on them.

or Person is at the net and other player swings and racket is let go(slips by accident) and smashes the other player, the player at the net assumes the risk of injury, its a foreseeable event one has to be aware of,,,

now with children or juniors, women there slightly different rules the man must wear the pants and assume the risk of injury when playing them,, The man must see the foreseeable risk for them. Thats the way it is like it or lump it.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by LuckyR

Hello!! This is America. You can sue anyone for anything

That is a good thing, compared to the alternatives found in other countries.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by sureshs

I need to be careful about something from now on. This thread has opened my eyes.

Sometimes when I am playing, an old fart or two will ask to pass through. I will say "go right ahead." Then as he/they is/are shuffling through, we would start serving or hitting. Sometimes we will test our skills by hitting as close as possible to them yet not touching them with the ball. The guys would panic and run faster and we would wave to them that it was all in good fun.

Got to stop doing this. I don't want to get sued.

Geez, do you stand on the side of the road, wave at cars driving by and then pelt them with snowballs when they get to you?

I did that once, but I was 12. Point being, Di(k move.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Geez, do you stand on the side of the road, wave at cars driving by and then pelt them with snowballs when they get to you?

I did that once, but I was 12. Point being, Di(k move.

But when two guys are shuffling across the court with their heavy bags, it is good practice to continue hitting through the gaps or with lobs. Sometimes I have tried a kick serve to make sure I can clear their heads near the net safely, even under pressure.

No, I am genuinely repentant. No more of this. Even if I don't hit them but they fall and break their hip because they hurried, I could get sued. This thread has given me a wake up call to change my ways.

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is a good thing, compared to the alternatives found in other countries.

Personally, I think the UK's Loser Pays statute is an improvement on the US system.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by LuckyR

Personally, I think the UK's Loser Pays statute is an improvement on the US system.

In the US, losers can also be asked to pay, depending on the case.

One has to be careful that it is not used against individuals being exploited by a corporation. It often takes many lawsuits to bring big corporations to justice, as they try their best to bankrupt anyone filing a lawsuit against them. There have also been many civil rights cases where the initial decisions were unfavorable, until it was clear that there was a pattern.

The loser pays all the time idea is horrible. No one can know what the outcome will be. It will be fundamentally biased in favor of those with deep pockets.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by sureshs

In the US, losers can also be asked to pay, depending on the case.

One has to be careful that it is not used against individuals being exploited by a corporation. It often takes many lawsuits to bring big corporations to justice, as they try their best to bankrupt anyone filing a lawsuit against them. There have also been many civil rights cases where the initial decisions were unfavorable, until it was clear that there was a pattern.

The loser pays all the time idea is horrible. No one can know what the outcome will be. It will be fundamentally biased in favor of those with deep pockets.

Q
Yea, but I don't mind a judge being able to label a lawsuit as frivolous. If a plaintiff can't come close to a burden of proof, they are wasting the resources of the defendant and the taxpayer funded court system.

Agree about the deep pockets theory. I guess that I would argue court costs should be paid by a plaintiff only when the suit is tossed early in the process and labeled by a judge as frivolous. Thus, costs would be minimal. In the event of a mid trial settlement they get split 50/50 and upon verdict they are paid by defense. My 2 cents, not a lawyer.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by floridatennisdude

Q
Yea, but I don't mind a judge being able to label a lawsuit as frivolous. If a plaintiff can't come close to a burden of proof, they are wasting the resources of the defendant and the taxpayer funded court system.

Agree about the deep pockets theory. I guess that I would argue court costs should be paid by a plaintiff only when the suit is tossed early in the process and labeled by a judge as frivolous. Thus, costs would be minimal. In the event of a mid trial settlement they get split 50/50 and upon verdict they are paid by defense. My 2 cents, not a lawyer.

All those provisions are in place. For example, say you sue your employer saying there was some problem in the office ventilation which made you sick and you have to go home early and lie down till the next morning. then it is found that you were actually playing tennis every day. You can well be asked to pay the legal costs when you lose.

That is why read the fine print of the product disability lawyer ads on TV. They will mention that there is no guarantee of any money from a settlement, and you may actually owe money to the company you sue if you lose.

[LuckyR]

You are technically correct that the loser can be asked to pay in the US, but you are being disingenuous if anyone reading your posts feels that this happens with any frequency in the American system. It is uncommon, very uncommon.

My guess is the vast majority of observers of the US legal system (except for the Trial Lawyers groups, of course) would conclude that the system is not suffering from too few lawsuits (for any reason).

There is something wrong when the cost of a ladder or a car seat is being taken up more by the legal department and insurance than the R&D, marketing, raw materials or human resources departments.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Plaintiff is very lucky I wasn't the judge.

If you are on a tennis court walking by the net, you are assuming the risk that someone serving a tennis ball will hit you in the eye. If you don't wish to assume that risk, walk along the back curtain.

Sheez.

Right. That's why, when I walk to the net to shake hands after the match, I make sure to wear eye protection, just in case my opponent wants to try one more serve.

Seriously, I don't see how the judge erred here. There was no finding that defendant was responsible. The judge merely held that there were questions of material fact that needed resolving (e.g. was practice really over, did plaintiff have reason to suspect that defendant would keep serving), so no summary judgment.

What's the problem?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by LuckyR

You are technically correct that the loser can be asked to pay in the US, but you are being disingenuous if anyone reading your posts feels that this happens with any frequency in the American system. It is uncommon, very uncommon.

My guess is the vast majority of observers of the US legal system (except for the Trial Lawyers groups, of course) would conclude that the system is not suffering from too few lawsuits (for any reason).

There is something wrong when the cost of a ladder or a car seat is being taken up more by the legal department than the R&D, marketing, raw materials and human resources departments.

Many such things are actually made in China. Also many of the numbers are exaggerated. Try to see how much is the fraction of legal expenses in the manufacture of a racket. I have read many articles on racket manufacturing, and have never heard it mentioned.

In fact, what you see is that American safety standards are being adopted globally. In many countries, it was cool to blame the victim for lack of common sense. Now people don't stand for that any more. I would say that development of American safety standards may have been expensive for America, but other countries are reaping the benefits for free now.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Avles

Right. That's why, when I walk to the net to shake hands after the match, I make sure to wear eye protection, just in case my opponent wants to try one more serve.

Seriously, I don't see how the judge erred here. There was no finding that defendant was responsible. The judge merely held that there were questions of material fact that needed resolving (e.g. was practice really over, did plaintiff have reason to suspect that defendant would keep serving), so no summary judgment.

What's the problem?

I definitely expected better from Cindy, considering that she was once a paralegal.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by sureshs

In the US, losers can also be asked to pay, depending on the case.

One has to be careful that it is not used against individuals being exploited by a corporation. It often takes many lawsuits to bring big corporations to justice, as they try their best to bankrupt anyone filing a lawsuit against them. There have also been many civil rights cases where the initial decisions were unfavorable, until it was clear that there was a pattern.

The loser pays all the time idea is horrible. No one can know what the outcome will be. It will be fundamentally biased in favor of those with deep pockets.

I hate to say this, but . . .

Every word of this is correct.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by Avles

Right. That's why, when I walk to the net to shake hands after the match, I make sure to wear eye protection, just in case my opponent wants to try one more serve.

Seriously, I don't see how the judge erred here. There was no finding that defendant was responsible. The judge merely held that there were questions of material fact that needed resolving (e.g. was practice really over, did plaintiff have reason to suspect that defendant would keep serving), so no summary judgment.

What's the problem?

Neither of us can say for sure without seeing the papers.

Still, I think that as a matter of law, anyone standing on a hockey rink can expect to be hit by a puck, even if practice is over.

And anyone on a tennis court should know a ball could come a'flyin' at any moment from any direction, regardless of whether a point or game or match or practice is over. If you are on the court, you have assumed the risk of any tennis-related injury, and nothing is ever "over" until you leave the court. On account of how it is a tennis court.

I'd bang the gavel for the defendant.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Neither of us can say for sure without seeing the papers.

Still, I think that as a matter of law, anyone standing on a hockey rink can expect to be hit by a puck, even if practice is over.

And anyone on a tennis court should know a ball could come a'flyin' at any moment from any direction, regardless of whether a point or game or match or practice is over. If you are on the court, you have assumed the risk of any tennis-related injury, and nothing is ever "over" until you leave the court. On account of how it is a tennis court.

I'd bang the gavel for the defendant.

And you worked as a paralegal?

You obviously did not learn much.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Still, I think that as a matter of law, anyone standing on a hockey rink can expect to be hit by a puck, even if practice is over.

As a matter of law, really? Could you cite the relevant law there?

I'm pretty sure that if Bob Hockeycoach huddles the team at the center of the rink for a post-practice pep talk, and Joe Hockeyplayer decides to fire a puck into the middle of the huddle, and he injures someone, Joe Hockeyplayer could potentially be held responsible for that action. I don't think there's a "dude, you were on the rink" defense.

Now maybe this incident didn't rise to that level of malice/negligence-- but that's a question of fact, not of law, right?

Again, this was a summary judgment motion. I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, the judge was just holding that it's conceivable that the defendant might be liable. Don't see how you can fault that based on what we know.

[Nellie]

The issue is somewhat fuzzy because the standard is general reasonableness. But you reasonably expect to get hit by a ball, when playing tennis (or, in my opinion, when you are around a tennis court). So you really can't complain about getting hit, even if it results in a terrible injury. The question to ask isn't whether an injury occured (that is question of damages and not of liability), but whether risk of the the contact was implicitedly assumed by agreeing to play tennis/be on the court.

It should be noted that you can't assume the risk for criminal behavior (e.g., http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis...6582--ten.html)

You should also note, in the above examples, that being allowed to go to trial does not mean that the plaintiff won. Instead, it is merely a statement that the case is not laughable and would be allowed to trial. So getting hit after playing, when you are walking off the court may be a situation in which you did not reasonably agree to get hit by the ball. The likelihood, however, is that case will lose because everyone has been hit by a ball when walkining on/off the court.

I can certainly think of examples of liability from getting hit by a tennis ball. I cringe to recall that years ago, I played tennis dodge ball at a kids tennis camp (trying to hit other players with the ball)- I can certainly imagine a situation in which the camp would be liable if one of the players was injured because it was stupid.

[LuckyR]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Many such things are actually made in China. Also many of the numbers are exaggerated. Try to see how much is the fraction of legal expenses in the manufacture of a racket. I have read many articles on racket manufacturing, and have never heard it mentioned.

In fact, what you see is that American safety standards are being adopted globally. In many countries, it was cool to blame the victim for lack of common sense. Now people don't stand for that any more. I would say that development of American safety standards may have been expensive for America, but other countries are reaping the benefits for free now.

I don't disagree with what you chose to address in my previous post, though I will take your noncommentary on the majority of it as tacit agreement.

Of course the as yet unaddressed issue is the flip side of your post #32, namely what about the well known and common downside to no Loser Pays, that is the quasi extortion of the threat of a lawsuit? That is, if the asking price of a ridiculous lawsuit is less than the cost of litigation, what is a potential defendant to do? "Pay up" is the answer from the accounting dept.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by LuckyR

I don't disagree with what you chose to address in my previous post, though I will take your noncommentary on the majority of it as tacit agreement.

Of course the as yet unaddressed issue is the flip side of your post #32, namely what about the well known and common downside to no Loser Pays, that is the quasi extortion of the threat of a lawsuit? That is, if the asking price of a ridiculous lawsuit is less than the cost of litigation, what is a potential defendant to do? "Pay up" is the answer from the accounting dept.

Not for big companies all the time. Sometimes they will fight it all the way to make a point.

For example, in the famous hot coffee lawsuit, the first award was rejected on appeal and I believe the defendant finally got some 1100 bucks. But the temperature of the coffee was reduced as a result of the lawsuit.