Eryn O’Neal
A student baseball player who was struck in the head by a pitch during a collegiate game five years ago has failed in his efforts to recover damages from the Citrus Community College District.
On April 13, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against Jose Avila, a former Rio Hondo College student who was hit by a pitch in a 2001 preseason game against Citrus College. He suffered unspecified personal injuries, according to the lawsuit.
Avila sued both schools, the helmet manufacturer and his manager. Only the claims in his lawsuit against the Citrus Community College District were under consideration by the California Supreme Court in its recent decision.
Citing a long line of precedents, the six justices reversed an appeals court decision from 2003 that stated Avila could sue the CCCD for damages.
Avila asserted that the CCCD was liable for conducting an illegal preseason game in violation of community college rules, wrote Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar for the majority.
He further accused the district of failing to supervise and control the Citrus pitcher; failing to provide umpires, or other supervisory personnel, to prevent reckless and retaliatory pitching; and failing to summon medical care after the incident.
Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, the sole dissenting justice, agreed with the majority on three of the four points raised in the lawsuit.
Like her six colleagues, Kennard also rejected Avila’s third theory, saying that baseball games are often played without umpires. There is no reason to impose on community colleges a duty to provide them, Kennard wrote, citing Rowland v. Christian.
Kennard wrote that Avila’s fourth theory fails because, as the majority points out, the district had no duty to provide medical care when Avila’s team came equipped with its own trainers, who were present to treat his injuries.
However, Avila’s second claim of liability, that the district failed to supervise and control the Citrus pitcher, presents a more difficult question, Kennard wrote.
In her minority opinion, Kennard cited rule 8.02 of the Official Rules of Major League Baseball, which states that intentionally hitting a batter is a pitching violation.
Furthermore, the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s Baseball Rules states in section 9-2 on pitching that intentionally striking a batter is a pitching violation.
Commission of Athletics executive director of the Community College League of California’s executive director Carlyle Carter said it is difficult to determine whether a pitcher is intentionally throwing a batter or if he simply “lost” the pitch.
It is difficult to determine whether a pitcher is actually throwing at a player or simply lost control of the pitch, Carter said.
“There are some instances, however, that certainly appear as though there was intent to back a batter off the plate or deliver a ‘send a message’ pitch. “While I understand the mentality of why someone would use “all” of the strike zone which will come close to hitting some batters, I do notunderstand the need or the philosophy behind “sending a message” by
retaliating after a player has been hit by a pitch,” he said.
“Any attempt to injure in any sport is not permissible and is covered
across all sports by the specific sport rules,” Carter said.
But the majority threw out the rulebook, saying in effect that it
doesn’t matter.
“Being hit by a pitch is an inherent risk of baseball,” Justice
Werdegar wrote for the majority. It is “so accepted by custom that a pitch
intentionally thrown at a batter has its own terminology: `brushback,’
`beanball,’ `chin music.”‘
Jody Wise, Citrus College dean of physical education, health and
athletics, agrees. “I’m sure that being hit by a ball would be an inherent risk of playing
the sport,” she said.
Kennard argued that the court should have allowed Avila to amend his
original complaint. She wrote: “Although Avila now argues that the District
would be liable if its coaches ordered or allowed a retaliatory pitch aimed at
Avila’s head, his complaint does not expressly allege that they did so,”
Kennard said.
“Thus, his failure to do so justifies the trial court’s decision to
sustain the District’s demurrer. But the trial court should have given Avila
at least one opportunity to amend his original complaint to include such
an allegation,” she said.
Wise disagrees.
“I don’t believe any coaches would instruct a pitcher to hit a batter
in a retaliatory manner,” Wise said. “It goes against the Decorum Policy,
which is a sportsmanship policy all coaches are required to sign.”
Bob Lofrano, head baseball coach of the Los Angeles Pierce College
Brahmas, now in first place in Western State Conference, said that retaliatory
pitching is not common in community college baseball.
“In Major League Baseball, retaliatory pitching is a part of the game,”
Lofrano said. “There is kind of an unwritten rule that if you hit our
guy, we hit yours.”
He cited as an example a game between the Dodgers and the Giants on
April 16 in which Giant’s Barry Bonds was hit with a retaliatory pitch.
“However, at our level, it is not a part of the game,” Lofrano said.
“There are very few retaliatory pitches during junior college games, if any at
all.”
Throwing inside is part of the game, Lofrano said. But the problem that
arises at the college level is that the players are not good at this
technique of commanding the plate. That inexperience sometimes leads to
beanballs and results in injury, he said.
“We [the Pierce College baseball team] have had three guys hit in the
head this year,” he said.
Citrus College head baseball coach Steve Gomez agrees.
“I’m sure retaliatory pitching happens, but it is not common in
community college games,” he said. “It has happened less than a half dozen times
in the four years I’ve coached.”
“Major League Baseball players have more disciplined stances,” Gomez
said. “College players tend to crowd the plate. Sometimes that leads to
injury.”
Aviva Kamin, Western State Conference commissioner of athletics, agrees
that throwing inside is a popular baseball technique.
“Over years [chin music] has been part of the sport in baseball,” Kamin
said. “Whether coaches teach this is up to them, as it certainly has proven
dangerous in some cases.”
Attorney Lisa J. Brown, who represented the CCCD in the Avila case,
said the key factor that led to the Court’s ruling was that Citrus College holds
no responsibilities to students who attend other colleges.
“I think this case will preclude students from recovering damages from
colleges other than their own,” Brown said.
In a separate lawsuit, Avila is seeking damages from the Rio Hondo
Community College District, alleging that his coaches did not properly attend to
his medical needs.