Jury: Baseball bat manufacturer responsible for death by batted ball

[jbernie]

Oh looks like we need to start suing bullet manufactures because they don't put labels on the bullets saying that if put in a gun it can kill people.

Your post reads a whole lot more funnier when you replace bullet with ballet... damn! must be some serious ballet if it is killing people

 

[gnasher729]

I ask this question then: if there had been a warning on the bat, what would the kid have been done differently? What would the batter have done differently? Answer to both: Nothing.

The answer: Bought a wooden bat?

Metal vs. wood probably wouldn't have made a difference.

What would you have done if you were in the jury? Would you have said that "metal vs. wood probably wouldn't have made a difference", or would you have looked at whatever evidence is presented to you? I somehow can't imagine that they had a dozen expert witnesses who said "metal vs. wood probably wouldn't have made a difference" and then the jury said "Ok, it didn't make a difference but this is a big corporation and the poor kid is dead so we say they are guilty". I would imagine that the jury was shown believable evidence that there was a difference, and therefore the company was at fault.

1. Reaction time: If you shoot a gun at me, the speed of the bullet doesn't make any difference. But in a baseball come, if someone swings the ball right at you, reaction time is important. I would think there is a certain amount of time where you can evade very easily, a little bit less and you will get hit sometimes, and a little bit less again and you have no chance to escape. And I would think that a traditional pitch is laid out so that usually players had just about enough time to avoid being hit (because the game is no fun if you're hit all the time). And I could imagine that with just slightly faster balls it suddenly becomes very difficult to evade a ball.

2. Speed vs. damage: I could imagine that if your head is hit by a ball, there could be either very little damage or a lot of damage, depending on speed. That there is a speed X where anything below X is harmless although painful, anything above X is lethal, and very little in between. Again, quite possible that aluminium instead of wood just puts the ball above the threshold from harmless to very dangerous. I don't know about skulls, but I know that if you hit a cocoa nut with the flat side of a hammer, there is either no damage at all, or the cocoa nut splits wide open. Very hard to damage it just a little bit. So a little bit of difference in speed could be a major difference in the outcome.

 

[carlgo]

The lawsuit is silly, but if it finally gets rid of the scourge of baseball (aluminum bats, not Bud Selig), then good for that.

The anti-aluminum people are always told that wooden bats break and are too expensive. There is technology, like laminations, that do not break and are no more expensive than those hi-tech bats made of special alloys and filled with gases!

 

[whooleytoo]

Shouldn't the core lesson from this be: "Baseball can be dangerous, there's a fair chance of being hit by a hard ball at great speed". If you don't like the risk, don't play it.

Rather than "Let's fine a company for selling a bat that strikes the ball X% faster/faster". I don't know much about baseball, but isn't that exactly what most people who buy bats want?

Could they not just as easily have sued the batter? A less talented batter might not have hit it so hard? Or the ball manufacturer? A softer ball might have caused less injuries.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

Could they not just as easily have sued the batter? A less talented batter might not have hit it so hard? Or the ball manufacturer? A softer ball might have caused less injuries.

And a softer ball doesn't travel as far.

Last night, I saw where Utley's homerun had an initial speed of over 100 MPH. With a wooden bat. The ball that hit this kid in the head was less than that. So, even with a wooden bat, he would have died.

 

[Sun Baked]

The lawsuit is silly, but if it finally gets rid of the scourge of baseball (aluminum bats, not Bud Selig), then good for that.

The anti-aluminum people are always told that wooden bats break and are too expensive. There is technology, like laminations, that do not break and are no more expensive than those hi-tech bats made of special alloys and filled with gases!

Diamondbacks were testing the bat condoms which cover the pine tar allowed area of the bat, didn't prevent the bat from breaking ... just the bat from turning into a bunch of sharp flying projectiles.

Holds the bat together much like the security film for windows keep the windows from turning into a bunch of shards, still breaks but the film holds most of the pieces together.

---

Of course, as soon as they get rid of aluminum bats, if the condom coated bats aren't immediately used by MLB on down ... I'm quite sure the parents of the little league kid's impaled by the broken wooden bat will try to get rid of those dangerous wooden bats. Leaving Whiffle ball.

 

[whooleytoo]

And a softer ball doesn't travel as far.

Last night, I saw where Utley's homerun had an initial speed of over 100 MPH. With a wooden bat. The ball that hit this kid in the head was less than that. So, even with a wooden bat, he would have died.

Precisely. It seems to me they're focusing unjustly on the bat manufacturers, when in truth if you want to go down that road, there were any number of contributing factors.

The ball manufacturer - a softer ball would have been safer.
The helmet manufacturer - for not shielding the head adequately.
The league organisers - for not mandating better safety standards.
The player himself - for willingly playing a dangerous game.
His parents - for allowing him to put himself in such risk (though he was 18)
The coach - for putting him in such a dangerous position.

etc..

 

[Sdashiki]

Wow 2 full pages of:

Cheers,

Ahmed

And finally a 3rd one where there is actually a basis for discussion and not bull.

 

[kellen]

What would you have done if you were in the jury? Would you have said that "metal vs. wood probably wouldn't have made a difference", or would you have looked at whatever evidence is presented to you? blah blah blah

Thats why I said probably. I don't know what was presented in trial, just my education on injuries to the skull. If you would have read the rest I said if he was hit in a certain area of the head it probably wouldn't have mattered. Batters wear helmets with lips to protect them from being hit from the pitcher throwing the ball. If he was hit here, it probably wouldn't have mattered because the impact from a pitcher is enough to damage this area. If a pitcher throwing it can damage this area (the pterion), then I think a bat hitting a baseball can create a greater force, be it a wooden or metal bat.

 

[iMacmatician]

be careful with the sharp corners of the board... they might cause an eye injury, let alone the risks of thrown pieces

Do not eat chess pieces.

Wow 2 full pages of:

That's why I don't like integrated signatures.