Lawsuit Reality Check?

[captain]

Okay this is my last post, the dead horse smiley is coming out soon.. I have put my thoughts out there and its obvious that some agree, some dont... My last point is this...

Dino do you really need a warning label, are you that confused or uneducated in life that you can't see that a ball hit from a bat is going to hurt like heck if it hits you? Every kid in the neighborhood knows it, why your having such a hard time with it Im not sure, maybe you took a whack as a little one and that explains you reasoning for seeing the need for a label.... Im curious though, at exactly what speed of the ball is it unacceptable for your child to be on the field? 30, 40, 49, 100? How do you make any sort of determiniation about this? I think it was presented earlier in this thread that there are standards that are already in effect, so if this bat was within those known and accepted standards then why would a warning label have made a difference.. You tell me now what is an acceptable speed of an object that could cause injury or death to you kid? Did the parents in this case know what the speeds of the balls were that were being hit from a wooden bat before their son was killed? So they waited until he was dead before they looked into it... The same injury could have happened from a wooden bat had the ball struck him in the same place with his body in the same position.....

Just as always someone wants something for nothing, not to say the death of their son was nothing but they are trying (and succeeded) to fill that void with cash.....

Sue the standards organisation that makes the decisions on what bats can and cant be used, not the company that made a bat that fit into the accepted catagory...

I'm done with this one, Im sure we didnt change the minds of any of the die hards on the other side but maybe there is one person that sees that personal accountabity is the key....

cap

 

[B@DA$$08BUS@]

but that is the point....the jury did not say the bat was the problem....

they said "put a warning on it"

the $850k is for not putting a warning on the bat.......

who does the warning hurt?

everybody keeps saying "parents know the dangers" what little leagues are you going to, my parents at my league are retarded.

Its not about the warning labels, its the principle of the matter. The parents knew the inherent risks of the kid playing ball yet they let him play. Then the kids dies and they are sorry for letting him play and now they want money from the bat mfr, that will not bring their son back. To turn the world around and get it straight they should put warning labels on everything, even down to toilet paper if I get a paper cut on my ssa I'm suing them caus there is no warning label that it may cause paper cuts or hell when my toilet gets clogged up, I'm suing the tp company or the toilet mfr, or shoot I may have to file a homeowners claim against myself cause I didn't supervise my daughter when she went to the bathroom. Maybe I will sue purina cause it makes my dog have to take poops regularly, heaven forbid it poops on the floor then I can sue for pain and suffering on top of it for having to smell it and clean it up. This is the same frivilous principle as the bat.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[BusaWizard]

WARNING: this thread will make you laugh.

 

[Dino]

Okay this is my last post, the dead horse smiley is coming out soon.. I have put my thoughts out there and its obvious that some agree, some dont... My last point is this...

Dino do you really need a warning label, are you that confused or uneducated in life that you can't see that a ball hit from a bat is going to hurt like heck if it hits you? Every kid in the neighborhood knows it, why your having such a hard time with it Im not sure, maybe you took a whack as a little one and that explains you reasoning for seeing the need for a label.... Im curious though, at exactly what speed of the ball is it unacceptable for your child to be on the field? 30, 40, 49, 100? How do you make any sort of determiniation about this? I think it was presented earlier in this thread that there are standards that are already in effect, so if this bat was within those known and accepted standards then why would a warning label have made a difference.. You tell me now what is an acceptable speed of an object that could cause injury or death to you kid? Did the parents in this case know what the speeds of the balls were that were being hit from a wooden bat before their son was killed? So they waited until he was dead before they looked into it... The same injury could have happened from a wooden bat had the ball struck him in the same place with his body in the same position.....

Just as always someone wants something for nothing, not to say the death of their son was nothing but they are trying (and succeeded) to fill that void with cash.....

Sue the standards organisation that makes the decisions on what bats can and cant be used, not the company that made a bat that fit into the accepted catagory...

I'm done with this one, Im sure we didnt change the minds of any of the die hards on the other side but maybe there is one person that sees that personal accountabity is the key....

cap

CAp, You are missing the point, it is not that there is or is not a particular speed that is acceptable. The point is that 2 bats, one wooden and one metal but equal in weight, when they strike a ball the metal one moves the ball much faster. So the little league pitcher has less time to react and if he gets hit is potential for injury is much greater. I do not think this is common knowledge, because like you said: "everyone would want a metal bat". It is siginificant enough for some leagues to ban metal bats so there must be enough evidence that they pose a siginificantly increased risk to players. This changes what the level of the inherent risk and the ultimate decision makers (the parents) are not informed. If the company knows that their product increases the risk then it is their responsibility to inform the consumer.

Go back to your example: If Suzuki did something to your bike that made it more likely to be hit by a white truck (as in your example) and didn't tell you about the increased risk shouldn't they be responsible for your injuries? Or is the inherent risk involved in motorcycling enough to absolve them of any responsibility?

Lastly based on the title of the thread, who needs the reality check?

- The parents who have the grieveance? Isn't a lawsuit the way civilized people present their differences?
- The parent's lawyer who built and presented his case?
- The lawyer for the bat manufacturer who could not pose a reasonable defense?
- The judge who after hearing ALL the facts and presentation by both sides made a decision?

What is the reality you would present them with, and why do you think the defense attorney was unable to get that across to the judge?

It is unlikely the parents will ever see 850 million because the manufacturer will probably appeal.

 

[Tiller]

CAp, You are missing the point, it is not that there is or is not a particular speed that is acceptable. The point is that 2 bats, one wooden and one metal but equal in weight, when they strike a ball the metal one moves the ball much faster.So the little league pitcher has less time to react and if he gets hit is potential for injury is much greater. I do not think this is common knowledge, because like you said: "everyone would want a metal bat". It is siginificant enough for some leagues to ban metal bats so there must be enough evidence that they pose a siginificantly increased risk to players. This changes what the level of the inherent risk and the ultimate decision makers (the parents) are not informed. If the company knows that their product increases the risk then it is their responsibility to inform the consumer.

Go back to your example: If Suzuki did something to your bike that made it more likely to be hit by a white truck (as in your example) and didn't tell you about the increased risk shouldn't they be responsible for your injuries? Or is the inherent risk involved in motorcycling enough to absolve them of any responsibility?

Lastly based on the title of the thread, who needs the reality check?

- The parents who have the grieveance? Isn't a lawsuit the way civilized people present their differences?
- The parent's lawyer who built and presented his case?
- The lawyer for the bat manufacturer who could not pose a reasonable defense?
- The judge who after hearing ALL the facts and presentation by both sides made a decision?

What is the reality you would present them with, and why do you think the defense attorney was unable to get that across to the judge?

It is unlikely the parents will ever see 850 million because the manufacturer will probably appeal.

That is way wrong... If someone does not know that a metal bat will hit a ball harder than a wodden bat, then are are completly RETARDED. Anyone with common sense should know that. They started using metal wood sin golf because they hit the ball further than wood right? Anyone who doesnt know or cant figure out without a warning sign that a metal bat hits a ball faster than a wood bat should be nowhere near any sports playing field nor their children. AND THE BAT THAT WAS USED WAS REGULATION!!!! It's obviously ok to use and isnt going to kill someone every time a ball is hit.

And i'm very sorry for you if you really didnt know that a metal bat hit a ball faster than a wood bat before reading this thread.

 

[m_ridgeway]

if the pitcher didnt throw so hard the ball wouldn't travel as fast either. faster pitch faster return. lets just all play underhand baseball with tennis balls. will fix everything

 

[coreywiley]

Alot of these big companies would rather settle out of court than to have all the bad press

 

[skydivr]

My 9 year old daughter plays soccer. Now, I could roll her up in bubble wrap, and never let her leave the house, but a tornado could still come along and take the house down on her and kill her. There is ALWAYS inherent risk in everything we do (heck, we RIDE MOTORCYCLES - and I jump out of airplanes! - so we all know there is risk). If my daughter gets killed playing soccer because ball hits her in the head, I an NOT EVER EVER EVER gonna sue the ball maker, nor the family of the other kid that kicks it, because I ACCEPT THE INHERENT RISK OF LIVING...

Having said that, God Bless and protect my little girl!

 

[afterhours]

this is not about inherent risk....

how many of you know that the baseballs an 8 year old plays with are different than the baseball 12 year olds play with?

most little league aged kids cannot use metal cleats, why? safety....the older kids and adults can, but they decided to be dangerous for kids.

same game, same inherent dangers...but different rules for safety?

they both play the same game, with the same "inherent risk" but the balls are different. Why? safety.

how many of you know that bats have to comply to certain specs?
how many know how much harder a ball travels after being hit with an alumium bat than a a wooden bat?


i am amazed that some of you have taken your dsitrust of the legal system and your hatred of big civil settlements and let it blind you to a simple safety issue.

to those of you with kids, think about this.....

if you were to buy them a dirtbike or a quad....would you go out and pick up a new honda 450.....or would you by them something a little better suited for a small child?

while we all agree that riding is dangerous, has inherent dangers that must be accepted. putting your 9 year old on the latest and hottest quad or DB opens up your kid to danger that are not inherent to Dirtbiking....but are specific to "placing a 9 year old" on a bike that is too fast for them, like the honda 450.

 

[tbonebusa]

Your argument above supports the reason I disagree with the suit...the bat in question was legal for play as decided by the league. It was not abnormal, nor did it exceed any set performance parameters set by the league.

I would bet that there was not a wooden bat anywhere on the field that day. I would also bet that the kid who was killed had never pitched to, nor himself swung, a wooden bat in league play.

You keep wanting to make the aluminum bat out to be some kind of freak supertool, when in fact bats of it's construction and performance ARE, AND HAVE BEEN, THE NORMAL BATS USED IN LEAGUE PLAY FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.

I have been umpiring Little League for the last 8 years...I have never once seen a wood bat used in game play above the T Ball level.

For contrast, I also umpire in our local American Legion league. Players are 15 to 18 years of age. This league has decided to make the use of wood bats mandatory. These big kids hit the ball just as hard as the same age group of players who play in Senior Little League, who use metal or composite bats. While there may in fact be a measurable difference in speed off the bats, it is not easily discernable to my eye, and I have seen plenty off line drives off the wooden bats that had the potential to inflict serious harm.

 

[Acehole]

ugh! im not even going to read past the 1st page...so if someone else said this then i agree with them.

Personal Responsibility people! Make your desicions and live with the outcome!

 

[afterhours]

Your argument above supports the reason I disagree with the suit...the bat in question was legal for play as decided by the league. It was not abnormal, nor did it exceed any set performance parameters set by the league.

I would bet that there was not a wooden bat anywhere on the field that day. I would also bet that the kid who was killed had never pitched to, nor himself swung, a wooden bat in league play.

You keep wanting to make the aluminum bat out to be some kind of freak supertool, when in fact bats of it's construction and performance ARE, AND HAVE BEEN, THE NORMAL BATS USED IN LEAGUE PLAY FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.

I have been umpiring Little League for the last 8 years...I have never once seen a wood bat used in game play above the T Ball level.

For contrast, I also umpire in our local American Legion league. Players are 15 to 18 years of age. This league has decided to make the use of wood bats mandatory. These big kids hit the ball just as hard as the same age group of players who play in Senior Little League, who use metal or composite bats. While there may in fact be a measurable difference in speed off the bats, it is not easily discernable to my eye, and I have seen plenty off line drives off the wooden bats that had the potential to inflict serious harm.

it is a scientific fact that the ball come off an alumium bat faster than wood. it has been proven. you claim it does not make much a big deal....yet all you have to do is look at a pitcher...a 90mph fastball is hitable, lots of guys can hit 90mph. 93-94 is much harder to hit. 3 mph might not seem much, but it could mean the difference between playing at community college or getting payed to play. 95mph and higher, chances are you are going to be a rich man....

while the difference between 90mph and 95mph seems small, in reality they are world apart...

it has been proven that an aluminum bat can give an 8 mph boost to a hit ball....once again look at a younger example. to a 12 year old, 60mph is fast......almost unhittable for most kids in the league. 50-52mph is batting practice....

now, say you throw a guy 9 fastball that are all 45 mph.....and he is fouling them off left and right. your 10 year old stands up there and bring the heat, and his 50mph fast ball blows right by that batter. even though it is only 50mph...the difference between 45 and 50 is alot.

that is the danger of the aluminum bat.....

most of the time the ball is hit and it is a routine play.....but every now and then a kid gets a hold of one and it is so much faster, it becomes dangerous.

 

[tbonebusa]

I have never disputed that the ball comes off a non-wood bat faster...my dispute is that the use of the bat was in some way out of the norm. Again...no one uses wooden bats in a league that allows the use of metal/composite bats...

My argument is against the lawsuit's premise...that the bat manufacturer has a liability due to the fact that they manufactured a bat that out performs a wooden bat. I would have an easier time accepting a lawsuit against the league for allowing the use of the bat, but still think it's all BS. Personal responsibility has to be a major issue here, and it is being ignored.

If every non-professional league in the world where to ban non-wood bats, I would have no problem with it, as long as every player had an equal opportunity with equal equipment.

Even then, in our society, I can bet that somewhere down the line a kid will get hurt or killed by a batted ball, and the bat manufacturer will still get sued because the bat was Maple instead of Ash, or the white paint above the handle hindered the pitcher's ability to clearly see the batted ball, or something equally stupid.

Assuming you ride a Busa, I see your argument as similar to this: If you ride your Busa into a wall at 100 MPH and are killed, your estate could sue Suzuki because there was no warning label on the bike that stated that it was capable of speeds greater than speeds generated by a 50 CC Moped. Therefore, they are liable to your estate for failing to warn you as such.

I would agree 100% that the bat company would be liable if they manufactured a bat that enabled the hitter to generate ball speed sufficient to kill, but only if there was no possible way that a wood bat was capable of inflicting the same damage. That is not the case. Wood bats can injure or kill as well. There are no warning lables on them. Yet.

 

[afterhours]

I have never disputed that the ball comes off a non-wood bat faster...my dispute is that the use of the bat was in some way out of the norm. Again...no one uses wooden bats in a league that allows the use of metal/composite bats...

My argument is against the lawsuit's premise...that the bat manufacturer has a liability due to the fact that they manufactured a bat that out performs a wooden bat. I would have an easier time accepting a lawsuit against the league for allowing the use of the bat, but still think it's all BS. Personal responsibility has to be a major issue here, and it is being ignored.

If every non-professional league in the world where to ban non-wood bats, I would have no problem with it, as long as every player had an equal opportunity with equal equipment.

Even then, in our society, I can bet that somewhere down the line a kid will get hurt or killed by a batted ball, and the bat manufacturer will still get sued because the bat was Maple instead of Ash, or the white paint above the handle hindered the pitcher's ability to clearly see the batted ball, or something equally stupid.

Assuming you ride a Busa, I see your argument as similar to this: If you ride your Busa into a wall at 100 MPH and are killed, your estate could sue Suzuki because there was no warning label on the bike that stated that it was capable of speeds greater than speeds generated by a 50 CC Moped. Therefore, they are liable to your estate for failing to warn you as such.

I would agree 100% that the bat company would be liable if they manufactured a bat that enabled the hitter to generate ball speed sufficient to kill, but only if there was no possible way that a wood bat was capable of inflicting the same damage. That is not the case. Wood bats can injure or kill as well. There are no warning lables on them. Yet.

actually the jury denied the claim that the bat was the problem....they simply stated the bat should come with a warning.

your haybusa analogy is an apples to oranges comparison, quite common for this website....but wrong none-the-less.

i have no problem with personal responsability......just give people all the information. the parents buying the bats today, probably never even used a wooden bat, its been nearly 40 years since aluminum bats came out.

people just have that knowledge anymore.

 

[tbonebusa]

actually the jury denied the claim that the bat was the problem....they simply stated the bat should come with a warning.

your haybusa analogy is an apples to oranges comparison, quite common for this website....but wrong none-the-less.
i have no problem with personal responsability......just give people all the information. the parents buying the bats today, probably never even used a wooden bat, its been nearly 40 years since aluminum bats came out.

people just have that knowledge anymore.

Was enjoying an intelligent debate, then you had to pull out the "I'm superior to the Website hoard" card.

You ain't all that, from what I can tell.

 

[IXCELER8]

All this comes down to what I call "Pussafication of America". It is simply what is wrong with this nation from the top to the bottom.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Lamb busa]

OMG! Lamb can't believe this thread. It's disgusting. You are arguing about the bats. The balls, the speed of the pitch, etc. It's about the judge in the case, period. ALL judges were attorneys and this fact alone makes the system what it is. The real question should be? How much does the lawyer of the plaintiff cost? How much does the other lawyer cost? The lawyer that gets paid the most wins. Judges know the scale and won't allow cut-rate lawyers, trying to undercut the system, to get over. All these comments about the aluminum bats allowing the balls to come off the bat faster are irrelevant if the family had the means to pay for a richer lawyer. The system is sort of broken in this regard. Expensive lawyers, or their practice personnel, will take your case on a "we don't get paid til you do" basis. Try to get a lawyer to defend you in this way. You will be hard pressed indeed. The bigger more expensive firms will keep the judge in his seat by contributions to his reeelection or contributions to the things he holds dear and close. They will also continue to bring suits into the system. Paying him yet again. Facts are irrelevant, however much you think they aren't. In speech and debate classes in school, you can argue any side and sound intelligent. Every side can be found to have inherent logic. See Dinos posts in this thread.......Sorry Dino However, WHO you present it to is far more important than WHAT you present.

 

[TIMMYDUCK]

Maybe this is why ? ???

According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,128,729 resident and active attorneys in the United States. ( 2006) figures. :cry:

So that is about 1 out of every 330 persons in the U.S.:rolleyes2:

We have made an industry out of all the laws passed over the past 225 plus years of America's existence. :lookaround:

 

[Mr Bogus]

Maybe this is why ? ???

According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,128,729 resident and active attorneys in the United States. ( 2006) figures. :cry:

So that is about 1 out of every 330 persons in the U.S.:rolleyes2:

We have made an industry out of all the laws passed over the past 225 plus years of America's existence. :lookaround:

If you are a lawyer and incapable of making a living, you become a politician, public servant or jail bird..

 

[Falcon-A]

I heard if you grind lawyers up they make good dog food. But then again the dog would get sick from that!

All kiddin aside, lawyers have ruined this country. If things don't change it will get a lot worse.

Our freedoms have been diminished and it won't change if everyone lets this continue.