Bruce Froemming’s passing recalls a colorful umpiring career—and a series of Minnesota cases showing how disputes over calls can travel from the playing field to the courtroom.
As the Minnesota Twins surprisingly remain in contention for postseason play despite a losing record in the weak Central Division of the American League, they will hope for good fortune from the umpiring crews overseeing their games.
One of the legendary members of that fraternity passed away earlier this year: Bruce Froemming, who worked 5,163 Major League Baseball games, the third-highest total in history.
The 86-year-old veteran spent 37 years calling balls and strikes behind the plate and safe and out on the bases before retiring in 2007, three years before the opening of Target Field. Froemming cut quite a swath during his lengthy career and had several Minnesota connections beyond umpiring Twins games at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington and the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis, as well as on the road.
But Duluth provided his principal nexus to Minnesota. Before reaching the major leagues, Froemming lingered in the low-minor-league Northern League, which operated in various forms from 1902 through its demise in 1971 throughout the Upper Midwest and into Canada.
Trigger Tossing
Known to have a quick trigger in tossing ballplayers and managers who griped about his calls, Froemming became one of the league leaders in ejections. He exhibited that temperament early in his career at Wade Stadium in Duluth.
In what might be unprecedented in the annals of the national pastime, Froemming ejected four sports reporters who were heckling him. It was one, but hardly the only, controversy of his career.
He also tangled repeatedly in the Northern League with a young rookie catcher named Joe Torre, later a National League batting champion and Most Valuable Player, a four-time World Series championship manager, and a Hall of Famer who went on to serve in Major League Baseball’s executive hierarchy.
The late umpire got into hotter water late in his major-league career when he uttered an antisemitic and misogynistic slur in a voicemail message concerning Cathy Davis, who was overseeing Major League umpires, during a dispute about his assignment to umpire a season-opening series in Japan. The incident earned Froemming a 10-day unpaid suspension—and cost him the trip.
Froemming’s passing, as the current baseball season picks up steam, provides an opportune occasion to review some of the Minnesota cases arising from umpiring and refereeing, a craft that Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated with adjudication during his 2005 Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
“I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
Roberts used the analogy to describe a judge’s role as an impartial arbiter with no stake in the outcome.
Painful Profession
Umpires generally do not sustain serious physical harm while carrying out their duties. But injuries are, to some extent, an occupational hazard of the profession.
In the 1985 case Rostad v. On-Deck, Inc., a softball umpire in St. Louis Park was struck in the head by a doughnut-shaped metal device used as a bat weight that flew off the end of a bat while a player was warming up on deck.
The umpire sued the New Jersey manufacturer of the device in Hennepin County District Court. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court then affirmed the appellate court, allowing the suit against the manufacturer to proceed in Minnesota.
The manufacturer was subject to suit under Minnesota’s long-arm statute, Minn. Stat. § 543.19, which extends state jurisdiction over a party that commits “any act outside Minnesota causing injury or property damage” within the state.
The manufacturer’s nationwide distribution arrangements and marketing efforts satisfied Minnesota’s five-part test for personal jurisdiction, which considered:
- Quantity of contacts: the extent of the defendant’s contacts with Minnesota;
- Nature and quality: the character of those contacts;
- Connection to the litigation: the relationship between the contacts and the cause of action;
- Minnesota’s interest: the state’s interest in providing a forum for the dispute; and
- Convenience: the relative convenience of Minnesota as the forum for the parties.
Because of the manufacturer’s “purposeful availment … of the benefits and corresponding responsibilities of doing business in Minnesota,” the Supreme Court concluded that it could be required to “defend this lawsuit in Minnesota,” rather than forcing the injured umpire to be “limited to suit” in New Jersey.
A softball umpire who twice claimed knee injuries was denied payment by his insurance carrier in Kolosky v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 2010 WL 1412214 (D. Minn. 2010).
The dispute began in Dakota County Conciliation Court and wound its way through the Dakota County District Court system, where a jury trial ended in a directed verdict for the insurer on grounds that the claim had not been filed within the 90-day period prescribed by the policy.
The umpire then took the case to U.S. District Court, where he also struck out.
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan recommended dismissal on grounds of res judicata: the earlier proceeding involved the same underlying factual circumstances and parties, resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and afforded the umpire a “full and fair opportunity to litigate the matter” in state court.
The prior case therefore barred the subsequent federal litigation. U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz adopted the recommendation, observing that the erstwhile umpire “cannot litigate his claim a second time.”
Inflicting Injuries
Umpires and other sports officials also find themselves in court because of injuries they inflict upon others.
In Sweesy v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2009 WL 1244047 (D. Minn. 2009), an inmate at the federal prison in Waseca challenged disciplinary sanctions imposed after he struck another prisoner during a dispute arising while he was serving as a referee at a prison softball game.
The prisoner claimed that his due-process rights were violated by the loss of 27 days of good-conduct time and the imposition of three days of disciplinary segregation.
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes recommended that the challenge be denied, and U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson agreed.
The procedural protections required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), had been satisfied. Among them:
- Advance notice: the prisoner received written notice of the misconduct charge at least 24 hours before the hearing;
- Opportunity to respond: he had an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence;
- Assistance: help was available if necessary to present his case; and
- Written explanation: the disciplinary decision identified the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions.
There also was sufficient evidence to sustain the disciplinary action against the inmate-referee. His challenge therefore was properly rejected.
In the 1964 case Ulrich v. Minneapolis Boxing and Wrestling Club, Inc., a 77-year-old spectator at a professional wrestling match in Albert Lea sued after a referee struck him while heading toward the dressing room following a match.
The spectator had approached the referee from behind and touched his arm. The referee abruptly whirled around, striking the spectator and causing him to fall and suffer a fractured femur.
A jury found negligence, and judgment of $33,581.75 was entered against the defendants. But the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded portions of the case.
The promoter could not be held independently liable on the theory that it failed to provide adequate crowd supervision because any deficiency in crowd control was not a proximate cause of the injury. The referee’s abrupt reaction after the spectator touched his arm was not reasonably foreseeable.
Nor was there sufficient evidence that the promoter negligently employed a referee whom it knew, or should have known, would respond in such an abrupt and unusual fashion.
The more difficult issue concerned vicarious liability. Because the jury had not determined whether the referee was acting within the course and scope of an employer-employee relationship when the incident occurred, the verdict against the promoter could not be sustained on that ground.
The case therefore was remanded for retrial on whether the referee was acting in the course of his employment and, if so, the damages attributable to the injury.
Criminal Cases
Disputes involving sports officials occasionally lead to criminal cases.
In State v. McCarthy, 659 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. App. 2003), the father of a football player was convicted in Ramsey County District Court of disorderly conduct following a disturbance at a football game in Oakdale after disputing a referee’s call.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. McCarthy became loud and boisterous, placed his hands on the referee, refused to leave when directed to do so, and disrupted the game.
The evidence was sufficient to establish conduct that reasonably caused alarm and resentment among others present at the game and therefore supported the disorderly-conduct conviction.
An even more serious confrontation arose in State v. Lindsay, 1991 WL 102960 (Minn. App. 1991).
Convictions on two counts of attempted second-degree murder and felonious assault stemmed from a shooting following a disagreement over a referee’s call during a basketball game at a St. Paul recreational facility.
The Ramsey County District Court entered the convictions, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. Hearsay testimony was admissible because it corroborated the victim’s testimony and bore “sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.”
These varied cases show that umpires and referees play key roles both on the field and in the courts of Minnesota.
