A Judge Calling the Plays Is Courting Disaster

Baseball umpires, football referees and horse-race stewards can breathe a deep sigh of relief. It looks as if trial judges will not be second-guessing their decisions.

That, at least, is one conclusion of a California Supreme Court decision issued last month.

“We should not sanction moving the arena for sporting competitions from the stadium, boxing ring or horse-racing track into the courtroom,” Justice Malcolm Lucas wrote in an opinion for the court.

The owner of Bat Champ, a standard-breed trotter, sued the driver of another harness-racing-horse, using a legal theory called “interference with prospective economic advantage.”

Bat Champ’s owner claimed the other driver caused his horse to break stride and wanted to collect as damages the additional “purse” he would have won if the horse had finished in the money.

It is not a new legal theory. You can sue someone for damages if he interferes with your contracts, your business or your “economic advantage.” For instance, if a person induces someone to breach his contract with you, you can sue both the person who breached the contract as well the person who induced the breach.

Basically, you have to show that the person knowingly and intentionally disrupted your economic relationship with someone, and that you lost money as a result.

One common difficulty in such cases is proving that you actually would have made money if it wasn’t for the interference. And, in the case of sporting events, the Supreme Court said, this hurdle is simply too great.

No one can know for certain whether Bat Champ would have won the race or come in second or third if the other horse had not run into his path, the court explained.

“Determining the probable expectancy of winning a sporting contest . . . seems impossible in most if not all cases,” said Justice Lucas, who was recently selected by the governor to replace Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

Fans Might Disagree

Now, avid sports fans might disagree about the predictability of sporting events and the impact of a ref’s bad call. A last-minute pass-interference call, three-second violation or base-on-balls could mean the difference between victory and defeat.

But, more than the difficulty of speculating about the impact of a referee’s decision on the outcome of a sporting event, Lucas implied that it just wouldn’t be right to let judges enter the playing field.

Basing his decision, in part, on “common sense, justice and fair play,” he warned that allowing ballplayers or jockeys to sue their opponents would “open the proverbial floodgates” of litigation with countless cases based on “missed opportunities to win various types of contests.”

Justice Lucas was satisfied that the “regulatory agencies” for each particular sport did their job well enough, without judicial interference. The specific rules of the games and the sanctions already in place for rule violations need not be tampered with by allowing lawsuits for money damages.

“Our crowded courts are ill-equipped to decide such specialized matters,” he said.

Can you imagine if the decision had gone the other way?

Not only would we have to wait a few frustrating minutes for a football referee to review an instant-replay tape, it might take years of court hearings and appeals before the NFL standings were made final. The Super Bowl might be settled on the courthouse steps. Supreme court justices, not race stewards, might interpret a photo-finish picture to decide the winner of the Kentucky Derby.

What a horrible thought. Lawyers, not pitchers, could win most-valuable-player awards.

Attorney Jeffrey S. Klein, The Times’ senior staff counsel, cannot answer mail personally but will respond in this column to questions of general interest about the law. Do not telephone. Write to Jeffrey S. Klein, Legal View, The Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles 90053.