Fair or foul? E. Washington hires for photographer for track meet. He gets hit by hammer and sues.

Well, I didn't assume anything, just my speculation of course (isn't that obvious on a message board?). But agreed, we can't know and can only speculate how a judge would rule (dismiss on summary judgment or not) or how a jury would view it if it got that far. The "baseball" rule is not limited to baseball though. There is tons and tons of precedent here across sporting events, and I'd genuinely be surprised if this guy won. But you never know, a court/jury could end up viewing it your way. My guess, but again just a guess, is that the plaintiff is hoping for a settlement from EWU's insurance company (if there is one... I don't know what, if any, insurance coverage a state university would have).

Maybe if EWU used officials that pay attention, are under 80 years old, have no cell phones on the field, and don't socialize and chat on the field then the photographer would not have almost been killed.

He knew the risks...screw him and his litigious nature.

As an independent contractor he should be insured for workers compensation - yes he can exclud himself but he most likely would've signed when hired that he was insured and now would have to prove gross negligence to collect. Good luck on that.

Exclusive Remedy wrote:

As an independent contractor he should be insured for workers compensation - yes he can exclud himself but he most likely would've signed when hired that he was insured and now would have to prove gross negligence to collect. Good luck on that.

IDK about Washington state specifically or the facts of this situation, but usually it's the other way around. An independent contractor is not covered by workers compensation while an employee is.

rojo wrote:

A contract photographer has sued Eastern Washington University after he suffered a serious leg injury in 2015 when a collegiate athlete threw a hammer during a track and field competition and the ball and chain struck the photographer in the leg as he was attempting to capture images of the event.....

Crews marked the lines of the hammer event with flags. Swords set up his camera just outside one of the flagged-sector lines and began photographing the hammer-throwing attempt by Montana’s Carlie Jessop, according to the suit filed earlier this month.

Swords “did not see the path of the hammer and was unable to avoid it because he was taking photographs of Ms. Jessop,” wrote Swords’ attorney, Evan Schneider. “As a result of said incident, plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries and damages.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/nov/23/photographer-sues-ewu-after-hammer-throw-hits-leg/

rojo:

After much time and reflection I realize that many of the coaches win because they are good coaches.

It's not all luck. Obviously LRC does well because your company as well as wejo and yourself have done a good job monitoring it. I approve of the recent changes. However some coaching of your changes would be helpful. I know the Terms and Conditions having read them many times but for some reason some of my posts are being eliminated for what seems like no reason at all.

Indeed one of your rules says that you can eliminate posts/threads without a reason. That's fine but

some teaching would be good in this situation.

I'm not a hammer expert but I'm guessing such a throw would be a foul

mebbemebbenot wrote:

Exclusive Remedy wrote:

As an independent contractor he should be insured for workers compensation - yes he can exclud himself but he most likely would've signed when hired that he was insured and now would have to prove gross negligence to collect. Good luck on that.

IDK about Washington state specifically or the facts of this situation, but usually it's the other way around. An independent contractor is not covered by workers compensation while an employee is.

I think you missed what the post said - the photog should have his own policy or would've signed off stating he is fully insured. Yes independent contractors wouldn't be covered by the university's policy but I doubt they didn't cover their bases. If the photog doesn't take nuisance value this will likely get dismissed.

In baseball I believe the ticket has a warning on it. Courts recognize that as a warning.

mebbemebbenot wrote:

Exclusive Remedy wrote:

As an independent contractor he should be insured for workers compensation - yes he can exclud himself but he most likely would've signed when hired that he was insured and now would have to prove gross negligence to collect. Good luck on that.

IDK about Washington state specifically or the facts of this situation, but usually it's the other way around. An independent contractor is not covered by workers compensation while an employee is.

Yep...but the definition of an IC is pretty strict. Just calling yourself one or being called one is not good enough.

Exclusive Remedy wrote:

As an independent contractor he should be insured for workers compensation - yes he can exclud himself but he most likely would've signed when hired that he was insured and now would have to prove gross negligence to collect. Good luck on that.

Sports Photogs normally make $600K per year and can afford their own Injury and Liability coverage.