Hit by a bat at a baseball game, does he have a case?

[meltdown75]

people that use the word "moreover" ... something about them.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Spidey is correct, ... simply attending the game assumes certain risks. He has no case.


Do you actually talk like this in real life?

Only when discussing the law.

 

[Zargon]

Yes, he's a lawyer. :awe:

Here, let me translate, disclaimers of liability does not free you of all responsibility.

thought that was common knowledge by now...

 

[DaTT]

people that use the word "moreover" ... something about them.

HI MELTY!!!

/excited wave

 

[DrPizza]

If you were to read what you posted....her medical costs were 11k, whats the other 9 for?

Wait a second. I thought you were in a country with "free" healthcare. I didn't know you had lawyers who worked for nothing. Of the 20k, how much do you think she would ever see? Generally, the only way to reasonably pursue such things is with the aid of a lawyer. But, once someone says "no" to your lowball offer, no reason not go sue for 50 bazillion dollars, knowing you won't get that much, but getting whatever amount it is that the jury/judge decide to award.

And, you can't blame the plaintiffs or the lawyers - it's the judges and juries who give out such large sums.

 

[DaTT]

And, you can't blame the plaintiffs or the lawyers - it's the judges and juries who give out such large sums.

I mostly agree with this statement.

 

[SaDiZTiKStyLeZ]

medical bills should be covered....

This.

Then beaten with baseball bats in the parking lot.

 

[SP33Demon]

Er. . . . Your first paragraph and second paragraph are entirely inconsistent. Products liability lies with the manufacturer (in 99.9% of all cases), not the end user or reseller. The reseller/end user can be sued, but generally has a cause of action for "contribution" or "indemnity" from the manufacturer.

Probably because you are confused by correlating the first example where a manufacturer is actually liable (Goodyear to tire) vs this case (proven inferior bats allowed for use by MLB in a game where they should be protecting fans). There is no correlation.

A direct correlation would be: Goodyear tires are found to blowout at a higher rate and NASCAR is still allowing cars to use them in their venues two years after it's scientifically proven; a spectator was injured as a direct result.

I don't even have to explain it any more, you already posted that MLB/NASCAR would be at fault in this case:

Moreover, it does not relieve any tortfeasor from taking reasonable precautions to protect invitees from forseeable risks while such invitees are on the tortfeasor's premises. This is particularly true when the tortfeasor is a business that has invited individuals to come onto its premises for some business purpose. As reflected in the tort law of most states, such businesses owe those invitees a very high duty of care.

Rawlings will not recall the bats because they can still be used in little league and high school games (less velocity = less trajectory = much lower percent chance of injury). I could understand if, and only if, the bat was guaranteed to maim in every baseball game at every level and there was a recall. However, ash bats also still splinter (albeit at a lower rate than maple) and as a result there will always be some risk associated with wooden bats at live baseball games. Just because a bat has a higher splinter rate does not mean the manufacturer is at fault but rather MLB for allowing the use of a bat that has slightly more potential to harm than average.

Conclusion: The guy's beef is with the ballpark/league, not the manufacturer since the league has since restricted use of maple bats which is a precedent of increased risk of maple bats. Also, higher Quality Control on maple's slope of grain is the main culprit of breaks, i.e. how the bat is finished (and may not even be maple itself).

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp..._id=10678914&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

The main finding thus far has been that maple bats in particular need an appropriate slope of grain, or comparison between the grain of the wood and a straight line up the bat. More slope creates a breaking point along which a large and sharply edged shard can emerge from a broken maple bat, whereas most ash bats suffer "rupture" breaks.

According to Halem, efforts to examine trends, inspect bats and educate players has helped reduce the number of broken bats from 2008 to 2009 by approximately 30 percent.

"Our goal is to continue to see a decrease from year to year in the number of bats breaking into multiple pieces," Halem said.

This spring, MLB put into place new, more stringent regulations that banned several types of maple bats in the Minor Leagues. As part of the new rules, restrictions have been placed on the density of sugar maple that can be used to manufacture Minor League bats. In addition, bats made out of several types of maple will be completely eliminated by the companies approved to make bats, meaning the bat makers must use North American sugar maple.

Those regulations apply only to Minor Leaguers not currently on 40-man rosters and without any Major League experience. Thus the rule does not require the approval of the Major League Baseball Players' Association.

What has been negotiated between MLB and the union and approved for the Majors is the inspection of maple bats, none of which can be painted all black so that the grain can be more easily inspected; bats with a lower density than .0219 pounds per square inch are not allowed, and any new players to the Majors as well as all Minor Leaguers cannot use bats lower than .024 pounds per inch; the barrel of all bats was reduced from 2.75 to 2.61 inches in diameter; any player who breaks 10 bats in a season must meet with a panel of experts to discuss possible reasons; and red and silver maple have been eliminated as materials used to make bats.

Further punctuating the point that any type of bat can splinter and cause injury:
(from same link):

Generally over the years, the wood in MLB bats has been ash, a hardwood that's flexible, strong and resilient. Certainly, they've been prone to break as well, and a broken ash bat is a dangerous projectile. In one such incident, Dodgers catcher Steve Yeager was standing in the on-deck circle when he was struck in the throat by a shard from teammate Bill Russell's bat in a 1976 game. Yeager's esophagus was pierced and he underwent emergency surgery, eventually fully recovering to play later that season.

Though their multiple-piece breaks can be dangerous, maple bats generally hold up longer and stay more true to the original manufacturing.

"If you can dent a maple bat you have an excellent start to a future in the game," as the Sam Bat website states.

Those who are presently in the game have one thing in mind when it comes to bats: Use what works.

In a corner of the Nationals' clubhouse, Washington's cornerstones of power -- first baseman Adam Dunn and third baseman Ryan Zimmerman -- use different types of bats to craft their run production. Zimmerman, who was drafted in 2005 and quickly rose to All-Star status, uses only maple bats; Dunn came into pro ball a little earlier, and goes with ash -- but he also has maple bats, which he mainly uses in batting practice.

"It doesn't matter that much, bats are bats," Dunn says with a shrug.

It's really up to the league to police bats, just as they do with substances. A quality inspection personnel for each team to inspect every bat's slope of grain would go a long way to prevent splintering and that responsibility lies with the league to protect its players and patrons. I think pitchers should also be required to wear some type of body armor (they are seriously injured by line drives every year) but that's another discussion.

 

[Sea Moose]

Do USA'ers not realize that the entire rest of the world ridicules them for stupid law suits. Sue, sue, sue, that's the answer. He wants to even sue the fucking guy who lent him the bat....come the fuck on.

OMG, I ordered a hot coffee and my clumsy ass spilled it on myself....you know the rest.

this is what i was thinking.

Accident could happen anywhere. Sueing the guy that lent another guy a bat, only in america

 

[RPD]

Life sucks, get a helmet!

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Probably because you are confused by correlating the first example where a manufacturer is actually liable (Goodyear to tire) vs this case (proven inferior bats allowed for use by MLB in a game where they should be protecting fans). There is no correlation.

Both the league and the manufacturer might be liable. The league for negligence, the manufacture for strict products liability based on a manufacturing or design defect.

A direct correlation would be: Goodyear tires are found to blowout at a higher rate and NASCAR is still allowing cars to use them in their venues two years after it's scientifically proven; a spectator was injured as a direct result.

Maybe I'm having a brain fart this morning, but it would seem that if maple bats are proven to fracture at a higher rate when manufactured in a particular way and the MLB is still allowing players to use bats manufactured in that way in their venues after that fact has been scientifically proven (as appears to be the case from the article you quoted), and a spectator is injured as a result of a maple bat fracture, the bat manufacturer would be liable just as Goodyear was liable. In fact, MLB's consent to the use of such bats likely will have no impact on whether the manufacturer is liable or not.

I don't even have to explain it any more, you already posted that MLB/NASCAR would be at fault in this case:

I agree that the MLB is probably liable for negligence. Not sure where/if I commented on Nascar.

Rawlings will not recall the bats because they can still be used in little league and high school games (less velocity = less trajectory = much lower percent chance of injury).

What Rawlings decides to do with respect to where its bats can and cannot be used is irrelevant with respect to the tort of strict products liability. It is forseeable that a adult sized bat will be used in a baseball game at any level. Thus, even if Rawlings were to limit the use of its bats to youth leagues, they may still be exposed to liability if the bat is forseeably used in an adult game.

I could understand if, and only if, the bat was guaranteed to maim in every baseball game at every level and there was a recall. However, ash bats also still splinter (albeit at a lower rate than maple) and as a result there will always be some risk associated with wooden bats at live baseball games. Just because a bat has a higher splinter rate does not mean the manufacturer is at fault but rather MLB for allowing the use of a bat that has slightly more potential to harm than average.

Again, I agree that the MLB may be at fault for negligence. I don't agree with your proposition that a strict products liability (SPL) case has to be founded on evidence that a product will cause harm each and every time. For liability to attach for a SPL case based on a design defect theory, the plaintiff must show that there was a design defect in the product that made the product more dangerous than usual (i.e., that the product was "unreasonably" dangerous or the design was negligent), and that a safer alternative design was available without an unreasonable increase in cost. The case law on this point is farly clear. A 100% failure or injury rate is not required. If a 100% injury/failure rate were required, there would be no SPL suits.

Further punctuating the point that any type of bat can splinter and cause injury:
(from same link):

Again, a 100% failure/injury rate is not required. All that the plaintiff need show is that the design was negligent or rendered the bat "unreasonably" dangerous, and that alternative and less dangersou designs were available without a significant increase in cost. The article you quoted supports that theory nicely.

It's really up to the league to police bats, just as they do with substances. A quality inspection personnel for each team to inspect every bat's slope of grain would go a long way to prevent splintering and that responsibility lies with the league to protect its players and patrons. I think pitchers should also be required to wear some type of body armor (they are seriously injured by line drives every year) but that's another discussion.

You may be right that the league has a duty to inspect each and every bat used by players. But that duty arises from obligations owed by the league to ballpark patrons. By contrast, pitchers are participants in the game. The MLB's duty to participants is quite different then the duty they owe to spectators (in legalese, "business invitees").

 

[MotionMan]

Whenever I see a law related thread, I feel compelled to read it. However, time and time again, I find people's manifest lack of knowledge of even the basics of how our legal system works to be really disturbing.

I blame the schools.

MotionMan

 

[Numenorean]

MLB knows that the thrill of possibly catching a ball sells a lot of tickets, but they need to put up more nets for those seats where a line drive ball or broken bat is most likely to kill someone.

I'm sure this case will be settled out of court. MLB should have paid his medical bills and some reasonable compensation up front to keep the suit from even being filed.

No they don't.

If you sit there, you bring a fucking glove and watch the fucking action all the time. If you don't want to do that, THEN DON'T FUCKING SIT THERE!!

 

[SP33Demon]

Again, a 100% failure/injury rate is not required. All that the plaintiff need show is that the design was negligent or rendered the bat "unreasonably" dangerous, and that alternative and less dangersou designs were available without a significant increase in cost. The article you quoted supports that theory nicely.


You may be right that the league has a duty to inspect each and every bat used by players. But that duty arises from obligations owed by the league to ballpark patrons.

Well, I wasn't exactly saying a 100% failure rate was required but that cases where 100% failure is present = cut and dried for the plaintiff (obv not the case here).

IMO the only way the plaintiff can prove that design was negligent would be to check the grain slope of the bat (if he still has the shards). The study that was released showed that maple was splintering 3X as much, however this statistic has now found to be greatly reduced after ensuring that the grain doesn't have a large slope (present day). Nobody, including the manufacturer, could have know that slope affects splinter rate to such an extent and even if they did, how would you prove they knowingly produced these large slope bats in 2007 and specifically knew that large slope (and density, and type of maple) were the direct causes of increased splintering? It would be a huge stretch for him to provide direct evidence of this, especially when MLB was allowing any type of wooden bat to be unconditionally bought and used in their sport.

Summary: MLB is still allowing maple bats because the direct cause of splintering was attributed to grain slope, density, and type of maple (silver/red are now banned) and has now been greatly reduced due to improved QC of the bats. If the plaintiff can prove he was struck by a large slope/banned red-silver maple bat then he would most likely have a case against MLB. If he can prove the manufacturer specifically knew that the bat that struck him was an unreasonably high risk bat then he may have a case against them (unlikely). If it was a sugar maple bat, then there is zero percent chance he would win anything against the manufacturer because these are regular bats that are still used and they do not possess an unreasonably higher rate of shattering vs ash.

 

[Phoenix86]

Whenever I see a law related thread, I feel compelled to read it. However, time and time again, I find people's manifest lack of knowledge of even the basics of how our legal system works to be really disturbing.

I blame the schools.

MotionMan

You think teachers would have a better understanding of the legal system?

And if you ask a professional, they tell you they won't provide legal advice!

Edumacate us.

 

[Genx87]

Pain & suffering? I still don't get it, how does money make it all better.

With what would you propose he be compensated?

 

[moshquerade]

Well, I wasn't exactly saying a 100% failure rate was required but that cases where 100% failure is present = cut and dried for the plaintiff (obv not the case here).

IMO the only way the plaintiff can prove that design was negligent would be to check the grain slope of the bat (if he still has the shards). The study that was released showed that maple was splintering 3X as much, however this statistic has now found to be greatly reduced after ensuring that the grain doesn't have a large slope (present day). Nobody, including the manufacturer, could have know that slope affects splinter rate to such an extent and even if they did, how would you prove they knowingly produced these large slope bats in 2007 and specifically knew that large slope (and density, and type of maple) were the direct causes of increased splintering? It would be a huge stretch for him to provide direct evidence of this, especially when MLB was allowing any type of wooden bat to be unconditionally bought and used in their sport.

Summary: MLB is still allowing maple bats because the direct cause of splintering was attributed to grain slope, density, and type of maple (silver/red are now banned) and has now been greatly reduced due to improved QC of the bats. If the plaintiff can prove he was struck by a large slope/banned red-silver maple bat then he would most likely have a case against MLB. If he can prove the manufacturer specifically knew that the bat that struck him was an unreasonably high risk bat then he may have a case against them (unlikely). If it was a sugar maple bat, then there is zero percent chance he would win anything against the manufacturer because these are regular bats that are still used and they do not possess an unreasonably higher rate of shattering vs ash.

Your summary sums it up and is my take on the situation. Hopefully there is a follow up to this story.