This jury was "out of the park".

[quadraginta]

Mont. jury awards $850,000 in aluminum bat lawsuit

Normally I don't subscribe to the 'frivolous lawsuit' mantra, and tend to be able to find some grain of reason in most jury decisions. Not always, so don't start a pile-on.

This time, however, I can't.

Perhaps my affection for the sport is warping my judgment, although it is only an affection, and not particularly strong. But I cannot see how a jury could find that a bat, used at some time by everyone who has indulged in baseball in the last several decades can suddenly be found to be unpredictably dangerous merely because it is aluminum.

If this doesn't get shot down in appeal then wooden bats are going to get a lot of unwelcome scrutiny.

[SkeptiChick]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Mont. jury awards $850,000 in aluminum bat lawsuit

Normally I don't subscribe to the 'frivolous lawsuit' mantra, and tend to be able to find some grain of reason in most jury decisions. Not always, so don't start a pile-on.

This time, however, I can't.

Perhaps my affection for the sport is warping my judgment, although it is only an affection, and not particularly strong. But I cannot see how a jury could find that a bat, used at some time by everyone who has indulged in baseball in the last several decades can suddenly be found to be unpredictably dangerous merely because it is aluminum.

If this doesn't get shot down in appeal then wooden bats are going to get a lot of unwelcome scrutiny.

Nope. Your affection for the sport is not warping your judgement. I don't care for baseball in the least, and I too find this verdict shockingly inappropriate.

[Olowkow]

Interesting, I thought it was just a preference, and was not aware of the performance difference. Here is some scientific info:
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/alumwood.html
They mention that very few aluminum bats break, but I wonder how many broken wooden bats have injured or killed. It's difficult for me to see how the manufacturer's warning label could have prevented this person's death. Surely, if you play a lot of baseball, you would already know that the metal bat hits a faster line drive.
Juries can be weird.

[Skeptic]

The reason is that somebody died. This makes the jury sympathetic, no matter how silly the lawsuit.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Interesting, I thought it was just a preference, and was not aware of the performance difference. Here is some scientific info:
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/alumwood.html

<OT>Hmm, some difference there, but based on my experience, if they compared a $25 aluminum bat to a $25 wood bat, the difference would be much greater.</OT>

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The reason is that somebody died. This makes the jury sympathetic, no matter how silly the lawsuit.

Yeah, I think that's exactly it. They felt sorry for the family, and who wouldn't?
So do I, and maybe Louisville should have settled out of court or something out of pity, but I see no reason why they should be legally obligated to do so.

[TragicMonkey]

Does "assumption of risk" no longer apply in the law anymore? Heck, even the people watching a baseball game assume the risk they may get hit by a stray ball and injured. I would have thought that was even more so the case with people playing it...but then, I tend to be a reasonable person. Clearly I have no place on a jury!

[Toke]

Do American sports cars come with a warning label concerning the dangers of high speeds?
And what about motorbikes.

[A.A.Alfie]

Originally Posted by Toke

Do American sports cars come with a warning label concerning the dangers of high speeds?
And what about motorbikes.

Or carbohydrates?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Does "assumption of risk" no longer apply in the law anymore?

You can't "assume" a risk you don't know about.

So, yes, it does. But not in the way you think.

[Toke]

I wonder if the advertising of aluminium bats mention the higher speeds/increased performance, or if the selling point is just the pretty metallic surface?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I believe the selling point of aluminum baseball bats is that they are more durable and last longer than wooden bats, so it reduces the overall equipment costs for teams.

[KingMerv00]

I spent many days defending the "McDonald's Coffee lawsuit" in another thread and I would do it again.

That being said, this lawsuit is crap. It should never have gone to trial. Hope it gets overturned on appeal.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

I believe the selling point of aluminum baseball bats is that they are more durable and last longer than wooden bats, so it reduces the overall equipment costs for teams.

I see, it just sounds strange to me for a speed increase not to be mentioned.
Some sports shoe commercials indicate that they can practically go jogging on their own.

[WildCat]

Surely the pitcher should have been sued also, since the harder he throws the faster the ball goes if hit? I propose from now on all baseballs be pitched uderhanded and must arc.

Think of the children.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Surely the pitcher should have been sued also, since the harder he throws the faster the ball goes if hit? I propose from now on all baseballs be pitched uderhanded and must arc.

Think of the children.

The only right person to sue in a case like this is the avatar of baseball.

(Wouldn't that be the mascots?)

[GreyICE]

Unless we're missing some VERY important details from this news story, the lawsuit appears to be undiluted crap.

[Ernie M]

WHAT ABOUT THE BASEBALL ITSELF?
Why wasn't the manufacturer of the baseball successfully sued?

I mean, wasn't it was the ball that hit the young man, which ultimately led to his death?

Doesn't this indicate that the ball was too hard, and should have been made softer, so it wouldn't have gone as fast after being hit by the bat, and wouldn't have caused so much blunt force trauma? Wouldn't manufacturing and using a softer ball be better to protect the baseball players and fans?

Please don't think I'm insensitive to the death of Brandon Patch or to the anguish his family and friends feel; but I don't believe a financial settlement fixes or rights an inherent danger of playing baseball. It appears the aluminum bat was not defective, so why was it (or the manufacturer) culpable because it was doing what an aluminum bat does?

Maybe the baseball industry would be better served if there was better safety equipment, such as helmets with a visor or other protection to safeguard from intrusion (worn at all times) to protect the head and face, and neck.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Ernie M

WHAT ABOUT THE BASEBALL ITSELF?
Why wasn't the manufacturer of the baseball successfully sued?

I mean, wasn't it was the ball that hit the young man, which ultimately led to his death?

Doesn't this indicate that the ball was too hard, and should have been made softer, so it wouldn't have gone as fast after being hit by the bat, and wouldn't have caused so much blunt force trauma? Wouldn't manufacturing and using a softer ball be better to protect the baseball players and fans?

Please don't think I'm insensitive to the death of Brandon Patch or to the anguish his family and friends feel; but I don't believe a financial settlement fixes or rights an inherent danger of playing baseball. It appears the aluminum bat was not defective, so why was it (or the manufacturer) culpable because it was doing what an aluminum bat does?

Maybe the baseball industry would be better served if there was better safety equipment, such as helmets with a visor or other protection to safeguard from intrusion (worn at all times) to protect the head and face, and neck.

The focus was on the aluminum bat because all the other factors were traditional. The game, the ball, the lack of helmets have all been around for a long time. The aluminum bat wasn't used when our great grandfathers played baseball. It's different and relatively new so it must be the culprit.

I suspect most juries would reject that argument. But with thousands of jury trials every week, we should expect an occasional jury decision that is not exactly rational.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Toke

I see, it just sounds strange to me for a speed increase not to be mentioned.
Some sports shoe commercials indicate that they can practically go jogging on their own.

Anyone with even a marginal familiarity with the game (anything beyond "My girlfriend made me watch the game last night.") should have known for decades that aluminum bats hit faster. It's kind of like knowing water is wet.

Given that fact, what I don't get is finding fault with the manufacturer. Sports groups choose to use metal bats for many reasons, not least of which is expense. They last longer. Much longer. They are more durable in all regards.

The manufacturer has not compelled anyone to purchase their product, or to participate in a group that has. That purchase choice is made collectively by the group in question, and is sanctioned implicitly by anyone who chooses to become a member of that group.

The manufacturer has not tried to deny or downplay the performance difference of their product. They have no ability to do so. It's common knowledge in the sport. It would be like Porsche trying to suggest that the Cayenne was no faster than a Ford Fiesta.

If someone chose to use a Porsche for their Driver's Ed. class, and a student elected to exercise its ability to do 0-60 mph in 4.9 secs. in an inappropriate place with fatal results I don't think that a jury would find Porsche responsible for either of those choices.

I just don't get it. I hope I can track down a trial transcript.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm not sure about the jury verdict, but it does raise an interesting issue about product liability.

Aluminum bats do hit balls faster. Faster balls do pose a greater risk of injury. Should they have to warn about that or is it safe to assume general knowledge? My gut is that it's generally known, but I suppose I could be swayed by a good argument.

What's more interesting is that there's a regulation process that the bat went through, was approved as safe, but did not provide protection against the lawsuit. I'm trying to decide if that's unfair to businesses or a good thing for consumers as they don't get screwed by a rubber-stamp approval process.

[quadraginta]

If anything the parents themselves hold a larger degree of culpability than the manufacturers (well, maybe not in this case, the guy was eighteen.) Anyhow, the participation in a group that used that product was elective. Unless it was somehow demonstrated that there was an active effort on the part of the manufacturer to conceal or downplay the performance qualities of that bat in direct and particular contrast to the commonly known performance qualities of all other metal bats, then there can be no suggestion that anyone was misled or misinformed.

If there is fault to be found it would have to begin with the purchasers, and continue from there to the users or their guardians.

[Toke]

Quote:

Anyone with even a marginal familiarity with the game (anything beyond "My girlfriend made me watch the game last night.") should have known for decades that aluminum bats hit faster. It's kind of like knowing water is wet.

I see, thanks for the explanation, so well known and not a advertised feature.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I'm not sure about the jury verdict, but it does raise an interesting issue about product liability.

Aluminum bats do hit balls faster. Faster balls do pose a greater risk of injury. Should they have to warn about that or is it safe to assume general knowledge? My gut is that it's generally known, but I suppose I could be swayed by a good argument.

What's more interesting is that there's a regulation process that the bat went through, was approved as safe, but did not provide protection against the lawsuit. I'm trying to decide if that's unfair to businesses or a good thing for consumers as they don't get screwed by a rubber-stamp approval process.

It's more than generally known. The debate has been going on since the bats were first marketed.

Even if the family of the victim can somehow allege ignorance (which I would be hard pressed to credit) still the organization that sponsored the event can in no way do so. This isn't a subtle, esoteric bit of knowledge limited to hardcore baseball addicts. If the sponsoring group tried to allege such ignorance that in itself would seem to demonstrate prima facie evidence of incompetence on their part.

I can't understand the jump to some sort of complicity or culpability on the part of the manufacturer.

[Psi Baba]

The study that Olowkow linked to shows a performance difference of only a few % in mph of the speed of the hit ball. I would be surprised if that small difference in speed makes that much difference in potential injury. Has there never been a baseball player (whether youth or pro) killed by a line drive off of a wooden bat? Furthermore, a warning label will not do one shred of good. If the bats already bore warning labels and Brandon's organization still made the decision to use them, how likely is it that Brandon would have quit the team?

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Aluminum bats do hit balls faster. Faster balls do pose a greater risk of injury. Should they have to warn about that or is it safe to assume general knowledge? My gut is that it's generally known, but I suppose I could be swayed by a good argument.

Why don't we do the math?

Olocow's link had average speeds of 88.6 mph (130 ft/sec) for wooden bats and 92.5 mph (136 ft/sec) for aluminum bats. At 130 ft/sec, a baseball would take .46 seconds to travel the 60 ft from home plate to the pitchers mound. At 136 ft/second it would take .44 seconds to travel the same difference.

As a skeptic, I find it hard to believe that an average .02 second difference is enough to assure that a player would have time to dodge a baseball hit by a wooden bat, but not when an aluminum bat is used.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Toke

I see, thanks for the explanation, so well known and not a advertising feature.

Exactly. There isn't any need to berate the obvious.

In general the sport of baseball is more resistant to performance enhancing equipment than the opposite. It takes away from the merits of the players. There was no small amount of dismay and angst just from the introduction of baseball gloves.

One not inconsiderable reason metal bats are not used in pro ball is that nearly all the ballparks would instantly become too small.

Yet another is that it would require all of the fans' dearly loved statistics to henceforth include a notation that the numbers were either pre- or post-metal bat.

There would not, of course, be any more wooden bats used after that. No one could be competitive using them in a field where metal bats were allowed. It would make allowing steroids look insignificant.

Some of the pro-ball fans are still grousing about letting wooden bats be made out of maple, and not just because of the safety issue.

[Ernie M]

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that this is not an instance of product liability (even though the resolution sure makes it look like that's how this was handeld), but might actually fall under "assumption of the risk."

An example I just got goes something like this: say a severely intoxicated person got in and drove a car, and then they get hurt in an accident. It should be that they understood and assumed the risk knowingly and willingly.

Unfortunately, some people might work the situation from a certain angle, run with it, and end up with a sympathetic jury.

Legislators need to push for better tort reform, but the twist is that it can end up limiting the rights of legitimate victims with legitimate claims.

While Brandon's death was unfortunate and tragic, I believe this is a case where he (and other baseball players) knew of the inherent risks, so the aluminum bat manufacturer in this instance should not be held culpable.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Ernie M

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that this is not an instance of product liability (even though the resolution sure makes it look like that's how this was handeld), but might actually fall under "assumption of the risk."

Consenting to risk can negate a lawsuit but I think the plaintiff is claiming that he consented to a higher level of risk than he expected to. Personally, I find this to be a poor argument for a lot of reasons:

1) An ordinary, reasonable person would know that aluminium bats change the speed of line drives. (Whether the plaintiff personally knew or not is legally unimportant.)

2) Kestrel pointed out that even if there was extra danger, it was probably not the proximate cause of death.

3) A warning label would not convey information that would have made a difference.

Quote:

An example I just got goes something like this: say a severely intoxicated person got in and drove a car, and then they get hurt in an accident. It should be that they understood and assumed the risk knowingly and willingly.

Not a good analogy for product liability. A better one would be a man getting behind the wheel of a car he knows was built without brakes.

Quote:

Legislators need to push for better tort reform, but the twist is that it can end up limiting the rights of legitimate victims with legitimate claims.

The need for tort reform is overblown. Of course you get stupid cases like this from time to time but that does not mean the system is in real peril. The fault here lies with the plaintiff's lawyer for taking the case, the judge for not dismissing it, and the jury for submitting to emotion. In other words, you can't legislate intelligence.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Surely the pitcher should have been sued also, since the harder he throws the faster the ball goes if hit? I propose from now on all baseballs be pitched uderhanded and must arc.

Think of the children.

You should take a little more time rereading the story.

[casebro]

So how much further could Brandon have moved his head in .02 second? Enough to make any difference? Was he hit dead center, or just barely hit?

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The focus was on the aluminum bat because all the other factors were traditional. The game, the ball, the lack of helmets have all been around for a long time. The aluminum bat wasn't used when our great grandfathers played baseball. It's different and relatively new so it must be the culprit.

I suspect most juries would reject that argument. But with thousands of jury trials every week, we should expect an occasional jury decision that is not exactly rational.

Good point. Because of this, I think it should be the league that gets sued, not the bat maker.

National and American leagues do not allow aluminum bats being used, and growing up, I was not allowed to use one either. Only softball batters were allowed.

Today, the interest in baseball is waning, so a lot of little leagues are allowing the bats, to spark interest when balls are hit further.

There are special balls used for T-ball leagues, softer, a bit smaller, less harmful. Maybe a recreational league should consider using those, also? Well, moot case now, there is precedent for who would be at fault. Hope the appeal wins.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

<snip>


The need for tort reform is overblown. Of course you get stupid cases like this from time to time but that does not mean the system is in real peril. The fault here lies with the plaintiff's lawyer for taking the case, the judge for not dismissing it, and the jury for submitting to emotion. In other words, you can't legislate intelligence.

Just in case I need to clarify my OP I think (I hope) that the "system" isn't done with this. My incredulity was with the jury. As I suggested in the last line, I hope that the review process will expose the flaws in this verdict.

The jury's return is only the first step in the process.

I agree with your assessment of tort reform.

[Ernie M]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

[...] The fault here lies with the plaintiff's lawyer for taking the case, the judge for not dismissing it, and the jury for submitting to emotion. In other words, you can't legislate intelligence.

That pretty much sums up this case.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

You should take a little more time rereading the story.

Didn't I?

Quote:

The family of Brandon Patch argued that aluminum baseball bats are dangerous because they cause the baseball to travel at a greater speed.

So does a ball pitched at a higher velocity.

I think a pitcher should warn the batter and all of his teammates before he throws a fastball. If not, sue sue sue!

eta: or require the ball to be pitched slow enough to arc. Think of the children!

[pipelineaudio]

This whole anti-personal responsibility movement opens the door to more and more collective punishment laws. Its a really scary thing. Pretty soon you will be able to get drafted at 18 but not drink till you are 21


oh wait

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Aluminum bats do hit balls faster. Faster balls do pose a greater risk of injury. Should they have to warn about that or is it safe to assume general knowledge? My gut is that it's generally known, but I suppose I could be swayed by a good argument.

Well, that's one of the questions, and one of the reasons for a jury trial.

It's an issue of fact, and therefore one for the jury to decide.

In particular, I didn't know that aluminum bats hit balls faster. So I don't consider that fact to be "generally known." And if I and eleven other people like me are on the jury, then we'll probably come to the conclusion that it's not "generally known" -- but if you were on the jury, you could certainly try to argue us to the other conclusion.

Which brings up the point of lawyer competence, which is (fortunately or not) always a factor in these kinds of issues. I'm sure the lawyers for the defense pushed hard to have people who know baseball on the jury; I'm just as sure that the plaintiffs' lawyers pushed hard for people like me. And both sides had ample opportunity to argue why their point of view should prevail.

Statements like "Anyone with even a marginal familiarity with the game (anything beyond "My girlfriend made me watch the game last night.") should have known for decades that aluminum bats hit faster. It's kind of like knowing water is wet." are therefore absolute death. (I recognize that the context on a forum is different than in court.) Had I been on the jury and quadraginta made that statement as defendant's counsel, he would have just lost the case irrespective of the facts of the case; you never directly insult the integrity or intelligence of the jury.

The basic problem is that you can't make a blanket statement about "such-and-such is common knowledge," because what is common knowledge varies from place to place and group to group. So that becomes an issue of fact for the jury to decide, and you have to guide the jury to decide your way.

Obviously, one side did a better job.

Quote:

What's more interesting is that there's a regulation process that the bat went through, was approved as safe, but did not provide protection against the lawsuit. I'm trying to decide if that's unfair to businesses or a good thing for consumers as they don't get screwed by a rubber-stamp approval process.

Quite possibly it's both. The fact that there is a regulation process that the bat went through is an important fact that I hope was brought to the attention of the jury (if not, we're back to "incompetent lawyer"), but it's also obvious that not all regulation processes are effective. The jury is within their rights to decide how much credence a reasonable person would have given to that regulation process ("The tobacco institute has approved this brand of cigarettes as safe, and therefore we move for dismissal of the lawsuit").

[vwgub]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Good point. Because of this, I think it should be the league that gets sued, not the bat maker.

No one should have been sued. It is tragic ACCIDENT period. Or are all deaths immediately assumed to have a culpable agent in said death?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Well, that's one of the questions, and one of the reasons for a jury trial.

It's an issue of fact, and therefore one for the jury to decide.

In particular, I didn't know that aluminum bats hit balls faster. So I don't consider that fact to be "generally known." And if I and eleven other people like me are on the jury, then we'll probably come to the conclusion that it's not "generally known" -- but if you were on the jury, you could certainly try to argue us to the other conclusion.

Which brings up the point of lawyer competence, which is (fortunately or not) always a factor in these kinds of issues. I'm sure the lawyers for the defense pushed hard to have people who know baseball on the jury; I'm just as sure that the plaintiffs' lawyers pushed hard for people like me. And both sides had ample opportunity to argue why their point of view should prevail.

Statements like "Anyone with even a marginal familiarity with the game (anything beyond "My girlfriend made me watch the game last night.") should have known for decades that aluminum bats hit faster. It's kind of like knowing water is wet." are therefore absolute death. (I recognize that the context on a forum is different than in court.) Had I been on the jury and quadraginta made that statement as defendant's counsel, he would have just lost the case irrespective of the facts of the case; you never directly insult the integrity or intelligence of the jury.

Oh please. Every kid in T-ball knows this. You obviously never were the sports type.

Quote:

The basic problem is that you can't make a blanket statement about "such-and-such is common knowledge," because what is common knowledge varies from place to place and group to group. So that becomes an issue of fact for the jury to decide, and you have to guide the jury to decide your way.

The relevant group is people who play baseball, and certainly everyone in my little league knew this even back in the early 1970s. Of course, we mostly used wood bats because back then the aluminum ones were very expensive. But everyone, and I do mean everyone, knew you could hit harder with an aluminum bat. The only question was "how much farther?". Certainly an 18 year old baseball player in 2003 knew it.

I really, really doubt the jury didn't also know this. They decided with their hearts, not their heads.

IMHO of course.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Didn't I?
So does a ball pitched at a higher velocity.

I think a pitcher should warn the batter and all of his teammates before he throws a fastball. If not, sue sue sue!

eta: or require the ball to be pitched slow enough to arc. Think of the children!

OK, the reason I said that was because it WAS the pitcher who died.