Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury: Baseball bat manufacturer responsible for death by batted ball
- Thread starter yg17
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
be careful with the sharp corners of the board... they might cause an eye injury, let alone the risks of thrown pieces
http://www.billingsgazette.com/news...cle_092384f6-c3eb-11de-8110-001cc4c03286.html
As noted below, her son played baseball since a child. Despite the constant exposure to the game, she might be the last person unaware of the risks involved in the game. No need to make people aware. Those who play the sport are fully aware. Again, ignorance is no defense.
http://www.helenair.com/news/article_1368a56a-be08-11de-a668-001cc4c002e0.html
So the ball that hit him was going under 100 mph. What does this say about the inherent risks of batters? They often face pitchers who are throwing in the 90's and 100's, without the need of a bat used to spring the ball toward someone. Should their be a speed limit off the pitcher's mound?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091022/us-baseball-bat-lawsuit/
Again, welcome to obvious-ville. You know the risks when you decide to be a pitcher. It's like she just discovered this zone of 60 feet existed where balls can travel in the triple digits.
It's a shame her son died. It's also a shame that this family is blaming bat manufactures, something her son used nearly his entire life with excitement, and they probably purchased one or two for him throughout his life.
I was a pitcher for 13 years. I've had balls come flying back at me. I know the risks, and I also reacted accordingly when the situation presented itself.
Okayy... Ahmed (from germany) I'm going to go ahead and assume that your legal advice on a united states legal case just isn't up to par here buddy.
But also i believe that in any sport there is a danger, i think that its ridiculous to sue the baseball bat manufacturer because someone else hit a ball into your son. Its not like a baseball bat moves of its own free accord.
This kind of makes me think that if person "X" beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the victims family could sue the bat company?
Maybe the family should sue the ball manufacturer, its the one that did the real damage.
GD i hate lawyers
But also i believe that in any sport there is a danger, i think that its ridiculous to sue the baseball bat manufacturer because someone else hit a ball into your son. Its not like a baseball bat moves of its own free accord.
This kind of makes me think that if person "X" beat someone to death with a baseball bat, the victims family could sue the bat company?
Maybe the family should sue the ball manufacturer, its the one that did the real damage.
GD i hate lawyers
Mr. lax said:
Perhaps after Ahmed's sideline career of presiding over the World Series of Wiffle t-ball falls through, he can go back to practicing law by suing every pitcher who ever hit a batter with a pitch for negligence.
Are we going to be suing home builders because there is no warning label on the stairs when you fall down it?
Actually only being found liable for failure to apply a warning label was the best case result.
The award was far bellow what they were thinking of at outset, and they won't have to liquidate or go bankrupt.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia 5800 Tube XpressMusic : Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; U; Series60/5.0 Nokia5800d-1/21.0.101; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
Perhaps this thread should have come with a warning label to inform people that one may become aggravated while reading this thread, thus contributing to increased compound stress levels.
I'm not happy with this verdict either, but that's because I'm not a lawyer.
I think the moral of the story is: Balls flying towards your face may be dangerous to your health. Uh.....yeah.
Perhaps this thread should have come with a warning label to inform people that one may become aggravated while reading this thread, thus contributing to increased compound stress levels.
I'm not happy with this verdict either, but that's because I'm not a lawyer.
I think the moral of the story is: Balls flying towards your face may be dangerous to your health. Uh.....yeah.
The cliche' "You made your bed, now sleep in it" seems to apply here.
You were the offbeat, ridiculous tone that spun this thread into the absurd.
The main reason college and little league use aluminum is not for distance, it is for price. Wooden bats are more expensive and they break. Aluminum doesn't, one aluminum bat can last a few seasons. It comes down to an issue of budget.
It has been proven that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wooden ones. Imagine how far Babe Ruth would have hit the ball with an aluminum bat.
Baseball should be played with wood, I would not mind seeing metal bats banned across the sport.
I knew you weren't an actual American who has played the game. But hey, I'm married to a US legal professional with a specialty in patents and trademarks (who knows enough not to try to pass myself off as an expert during the numerous patent infringement cases discussed here on MR). I even have both my wife's brother and uncle who are US lawyers specializing in criminal defense (one in New York State, one in Virginia) which is even closer to tort law than tax law and patents and trademarks put together. Through sheer force of numbers I have tort law surrounded better than you.
I've also played the game for many years and knew even at age 8 (first year of little league and generally when you begin playing organized baseball) that aluminum bats hit the ball harder than wooden ones. I'm pretty sure both of my parents did by that time as well. I am sure his parents were also aware of this fact ten years into his baseball career. I am also sure the parents' motivation for this suit was revenge for their son's death, followed by a lawyer who could sniff out the deepest pockets available. This is fine, but should be considered by the manufacturer when deciding whether or not to appeal and put the family through more.
I don't think little league needs to change, they don't hit the ball as hard. But colleges (especially the big Division I schools) have plenty of money to buy more bats. Then the players will look more attractive to the pro scouts as well, since they will already be using wooden bats.
Respectfully, I do not a reason to ban anything, aluminium or wood, in terms of batting sporting equipment. This instance depicted seems isolated and certainly no reason to deny children their youth because of litigious attorneys.
Who's saying to deny kids of their youth, just use a wooden bat. The sport was meant for a wood bat.
I would be genuinely interested to see if someone could produce a pitchers helmet that provides protection to the side/read of the head without blocking vision too much. I would assume the automatic reaction is to turn away from the ball so frontal protection isn't a high priority.
Keeping in mind the reason why the base coaches are wearing helmets is because a Colorado Rockies minor league coach was hit in the head by a line drive, and the base coaches are about an extra 30ft (?) from the batter.
Geez you all are a bunch of....
I will let the subject line complete itself...
Look, I think the lawsuit it a prime example of what's wrong with America myself! But to have everyone here decide to "gang bang" on Ahmed, call him an idiot and even threaten him is bad form. He originally just wanted to show technically why the lawsuit went through. I thought it was interesting to learn how sh*t like this does get through the system. So now I know. And I still think it shouldn't have happened. But I don't feel like I need to attack Ahmed! (No, I'm not a lawyer too.)
my two cents..
I will let the subject line complete itself...
Look, I think the lawsuit it a prime example of what's wrong with America myself! But to have everyone here decide to "gang bang" on Ahmed, call him an idiot and even threaten him is bad form. He originally just wanted to show technically why the lawsuit went through. I thought it was interesting to learn how sh*t like this does get through the system. So now I know. And I still think it shouldn't have happened. But I don't feel like I need to attack Ahmed! (No, I'm not a lawyer too.)
my two cents..
Metal vs. wood probably wouldn't have made a difference.
Article doesn't say where they were hit in the head, but probably the pterion. Its the thin part of the skull that is normally protected by that lip on a batters helmet. Has an artery underneath it and damage to skull can lead to hemorrhage.
Wow, can't believe they would sue. Even more suprised they would win.
Article doesn't say where they were hit in the head, but probably the pterion. Its the thin part of the skull that is normally protected by that lip on a batters helmet. Has an artery underneath it and damage to skull can lead to hemorrhage.
Wow, can't believe they would sue. Even more suprised they would win.
That's why I carry bats, not guns. The uk has had right all along with their bobbies.
When the suit runs its course, they will get nothing. We are good in the states of advertising these kinds of suits... makes people tune in and ad revs go up. What we're terrible at is the follow-up. Remember that woman who got burned by coffee at McDonald's and won a multi-million dollar judgment? Guess how much she walked away with.
And "certain" political parties use these initial suits as fodder for tort reform, which is hogwash. only 3% of the rise in premiums is because of frivolous lawsuits WON OR NOT. The rest is from, brace yourself, the bond market. Bad market, rates go up. It's all there to fool you people. But not me.
And "certain" political parties use these initial suits as fodder for tort reform, which is hogwash. only 3% of the rise in premiums is because of frivolous lawsuits WON OR NOT. The rest is from, brace yourself, the bond market. Bad market, rates go up. It's all there to fool you people. But not me.
Baseball bats are dangerous?
Of course this is a disingenuous representation of what the jury actually decided.
They aren't doubting the danger of baseball bats, baseballs, baseball, or sports in general. The only question before them (and legally, the only question they could answer) was whether or not aluminum bats made baseball more dangerous. They decided, based on the evidence they were presented, that that was the case.
They may also not be appealing because they've lost a few of these cases already.
It's also more than probable that the case is a poor one to appeal. The question before the jury was whether or not aluminum bats are more dangerous, and if the particular bat was defective in any way. Those are both questions tort juries can answer, so there isn't much room for appeal unless procedures were not followed.
Interesting assertion. The league no doubt has insurance that protects it for at least a few hundred grand. The family would have had a far easier time forcing the league to settle and moving on with their lives with a sizable award to show for it.
The fact that they chose to stick it out for 6+ years for only a little more shows that perhaps this wasn't only about the money.
They are also not the only family in recent years to win against an aluminum bat manufacturer. Perhaps this really was just about bats.
The question isn't whether or not the bat is dangerous (because we all know it is), but whether or not it is more dangerous. The jury (and a few others in recent years agree) felt that it is.
This has nothing to do with "common sense." The question before the jury wasn't whether or not one can expect to be wounded while playing baseball, but whether or not an aluminum bat represented an appreciable increase in risk. Again, they (and other juries across the country) saw evidence that suggested that to be the case. Unless you review the evidence yourself and tell us why it is bogus, casting the jury as less intelligent than 2 year-olds isn't really an appropriate position to hold.
So, because it made it to court, that validates the case? This is AMERICA, where you can get away with suing people over hot coffee.
The hot coffee case has gained notoriety as an example of tort abuse, but in fact represents precisely how tort protections are meant to function.
McDonalds knew their coffee makers were malfunctioning (over 1,000 individuals had previously been burned to the third degree by their coffee), and franchise owners had requested that McDonalds issue them new coffee makers for that very reason.
There was also extensive documentation of how common it was for these coffee makers to overheat coffee (even normal hot coffee should NOT cause 3rd degree burns-1st or maybe 2nd at worst). This woman managed to get 3rd degree burns through sweats.
McDonalds was at fault, and they deserved the judgement against them.
If a manufacturer contributed to the harm suffered by a victim, then the manufacturer is partially at fault.
Now, this is an interesting question. The natural variances in player strength and speed are rather impossible to control or predict. What can be controlled is steroid use and other means of artificial strengthening.
Now, as for pitch type, maybe the pitch should be changed. Perhaps this type of pitching is just too dangerous to warrant. That's not a question that is addressed here. The only question is, are aluminum bats more dangerous than wooden ones? If they are, is the degree appreciable enough to warrant a judgement? The jury felt so, and unless you also have seen the evidence, you can't make the claim that they necessarily made the wrong decision.
And even after all that, they can be found liable. Liability doesn't stop at following the law. The law can be quite minimal (in fact, I doubt there is much in terms of aluminum bats). That's why tort law is there; to fill the gaps left by statutory law.
If the builders use a shape of stair that is conducive to slipping, then yes, they are liable as well.
In fact, most corporate lawyers are well trained and typically the best. Most tort cases end in victory for the corporation. The odds of winning are actually quite insurmountable. The rare case that makes headlines is not representative. It is truly a David vs Goliath fight, and Goliath usually wins.