When Players Should be Subject to Legal Liability: I have strongly opposed criminal penalties or civil liabilities for actions that occur on the field of play in sports, such as vicious hits in hockey. See this essay on the subject, as well as this follow-up. But my defense extends only to actions that are arguably within the game, even including overly vicious hockey hits. It does not extend to what happened in Oakland a few weeks back, where Texas Rangers reliever Frank Francisco threw a chair into the stands, striking a fan and breaking her nose. The incident occurred after a night of taunting by the A's fans and a response by the Rangers' bullpen. But I don't care whose mother was insulted -- you do not fight with fans, and you do not throw a chair at anyone. So, I believe it would be completely just not only for this fan to sue for damages, but also for Francisco to be criminally prosecuted.



So where exactly is the line? I think almost anyone can see that while these incidents (the severe hit by Todd Bertuzzi and the chair-throwing incident) occurred on the field of play, during a game, one can be viewed as just part of the game, albeit a violent part with disastrous consequences, and the other well outside any bounds of play. One occurred during play, to a fellow player, and the other in the stands by a pitcher not participating in the contest.



But perhaps the biggest distinction can be in the point at which the outrage sets in. In the Francisco incident, it would have been a clearly punishable act, even if the chair had not hit anyone. It is clear that throwing a chair into the stands is not a part of baseball. On the other hand, the outrage over the Bertuzzi incident did not arise from the act itself. Yes, it was a sucker punch. Yes, it was from behind. But if you think this was the only hit like this in hockey this past season, you were not watching closely. In this case, the tragic consequence of the act, the severe injury to Steve Moore, precipitated the call for legal action. If Moore had gone un-injured, Bertuzzi would have been penalized, but the hit would not have caused the uproar that it did.



The law clearly states that the consequences of an action, even if unintended, can lead to a higher level of legal liability. If you punch a person and accidentally kill them, you can still be charged with manslaughter, even if you only meant to break the person's nose. But I think in this case, the character of the act, and not only the consequences, can help draw a line between acts so outrageous as to warrant legal remedies and acts that are within the boundaries of the game, meaning that there should not be any more legal recourse than for a late hit which results in a broken leg, or this tragic injury. The injuries may be horrible. Careers may even be ended. But so long as it is part of the game, the law has no business interfering.

Posted in: