Santopietro v. City of New Haven
Connecticut Supreme Court
682 A.2d 106 (1996)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
In October 1988, Raymond Santopietro Jr. (plaintiff) attended an amateur softball game in a New Haven, Connecticut (defendant), park, which he observed from behind the backstop. Mark Piombino (defendant) played in the game. Piombino flung his bat toward the backstop. Piombino’s bat somehow went through the backstop and hit Santopietro, causing serious injuries. The game was umpired by David Brennan and Bruce Shepard (umpires) (defendants). The umpires were experienced umpires; they had received extensive training and had been certified by a national association of amateur umpires. Santopietro sued the umpires, alleging that the umpires had been negligent by not taking action in response to unruly behavior by Piombino’s teammates before Santopietro’s injury. Specifically, Santopietro alleged that Piombino’s teammates, among other things, engaged in taunting, used vulgar language, threw their gloves, kicked the dirt, and, in one case, threw a bat (bat incident). The umpires denied being aware of any misconduct by Piombino’s teammates. Moreover, Shepard testified that he would have ejected any player he saw throwing a bat. The umpires further testified that they had a duty to maintain control of the game to protect spectators, including by issuing warnings to players, but that whether to impose discipline in any specific instance was committed to their discretion. The district court issued a directed verdict in favor of the umpires, ruling that Santopietro failed to establish that the umpires violated the relevant standard of care. Santopietro appealed, arguing that the umpires’ own testimonies established the standard of care that the umpires allegedly failed to meet and that Santopietro presented sufficient evidence that the umpires did not meet that standard of care with respect to the alleged bat incident and taunting.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Borden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.