- HIRSCHBECK v. ALOMAR
- Case Summary: On the night of October 1, 1996 John Hirschbeck, plaintiff, was the referee for the M.L.B.A.'s (Mid-Lands League Baseball Association) opening game, in which the defendant, Roberto Alomar, was playing for the home team, the "Big Orange Birds". During the 9th inning, the score "Big Orange Birds"- 3 "Plaid Sox"- 4, Roberto Alomar was up to bat when he was called out by the plaintiff on a pitch that looked to be outside. According to some witness the player Roberto Alomar then began to call the referee John Hirschbeck, "foul names". Hirschbeck, the plaintiff, is then said to have replied in the same fashion to Alomar, the defendant. After a few minutes of going back and forth with similar and increasing "foul" comments, the plaintiff then claims that the defendant, Roberto Alomar, "launched a luggie" at him.
- Witnesses for Defense
- Roberto Alomar (defendant): Alomar believes that batters and referees are suppose to argue, "it's just part of the game" and claims the Hirschbeck started the whole thing by saying "You're out sucker" after the third strike. Alomar can't remember if he ever spat on, at or near Hirschbeck, but he does remember that the plaintiff tried to kick him.
- Pat Cuezze (head coach): As head couch for the "Big Orange Birds" Mr. Cuezze says that Roberto is a "good kid", who always shows up on time for practice and does a lot for the Mid-Lands community. Furthermore, coach Cuezze believes that Alomar has too much respect for the game and would never do anything to disrespect it.
- Susan Chase (reporter): Susan is an eyewitness who claims to have "seen the whole thing" from her seat in the press box, which is behind the pitcher's mound on the third level. She says that she never saw R. Alomar spit on the referee, nor did she see Hirschbeck try to kick Alomar. In a post-game interview Alomar stated to Mrs. Chase "Boy Hirschbeck has really changed, ever since his son died. He's just got real bitter."
- Witnesses for Plaintiff
- John Hirschbeck (plaintiff): As far as Hirschbeck knows he called the third strike on the last out in the last inning and the game was finally over. But then all of a sudden Alomar went nutty, which he's known for doing, and started yelling at Hirschbeck. When the plaintiff refused to change the cal Alomar, the defendant, "launched a luggie at me" according to Hirschbeck.
- Frank Palsgraf (catcher): Frank says he had a great opportunity to see what was happening, because he was in reality in "the middle of all it". At some point in the yelling, both plaintiff and defendant were yelling according to Palsgraf, the defendant tripped falling almost on top of Alomar, the batter, and then Alomar all of a sudden "spat right into the ref's face".
- Gene Budig (M.L.B.A.'s president): Mr. Budig suspended Robert Alomar after carefully reviewing the video tape of the game. Budig says "Alomar's actions are a disgrace to the game of baseball". However, Budig has also delayed the suspension for two month to allow the "Big Orange Bird's" some time to compensate loosing their star player.Civil Code 246.8
- The Law
- Part A) It is unlawful for one person to place the bodily fluids from a person or animal onto or into another with out the specific consent from the later party. If the preponderance of the evidence shows that the prior actor is at more than 50% at fault, then a reward equal to that percentage shall be paid by the prior party. The damaged party shall have the right to seek an increasing award, if the act was committed under circumstances of negligence, recklessness, and/or malicious intent, with negligence being the lowest sum reward and malicious intent being the highest possible reward.
- Part B) EXCEPTION to Part A: The damaged party shall not have a right to seek damages occurred under Part A when such act occurred under circumstances in which: 1)The plaintiff's life was in jeopardy and the prior party is a qualified doctor acting within the general guidelines of his/her practice or; 2)The plaintiff demonstrated actions under which a reasonable person could conclude that the plaintiff was willing to participate in such action or, 3)The defendant was responding to a show of force equal to that of the plaintiff.