This jury was "out of the park".

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

Obviously. More accurately, I was never the baseball type.

... which is not really relevant to my qualifications to sit on a jury.

Quote:

The relevant group is people who play baseball,

No, the relevant group is the jury, since the jury are the people who are deciding the factual question of whether or not something is common knowledge.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by vwgub

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?

Interesting. Except that when people start changing rules around for their own agenda without taking safety into consideration, there is fault involved. I grew up in the era of safe baseball, I would not know there was a difference if my kid wanted to play. Had I been let aware of changes made....

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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

Makes no difference. If aluminum bats are unnecessarily dangerous, so are fast pitches.

Don't you think the fastball should be banned from baseball?

Underhand slow pitch, with nerf balls. It's the right thing to do!

If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Obviously. More accurately, I was never the baseball type.

... which is not really relevant to my qualifications to sit on a jury.



No, the relevant group is the jury, since the jury are the people who are deciding the factual question of whether or not something is common knowledge.

I think maybe one of you is arguing why it shouldn't have gone to court, while the other one is arguing why it is plausible to reach this verdict. I will let you two argue as to which is which.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Makes no difference. If aluminum bats are unnecessarily dangerous, so are fast pitches.

Don't you think the fastball should be banned from baseball?

Underhand slow pitch, with nerf balls. It's the right thing to do!

If it saves just one life, it's worth it.

So, you still stand by your comment that the pitcher, the one who died, should be sued for a wrongful death?

ETA: That would make one great precedent for all the children of parents who commit suicide.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, the relevant group is the jury, since the jury are the people who are deciding the factual question of whether or not something is common knowledge.

In this particular case, it had to be "common knowledge" among 12 morons. An impossible hurdle.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

So, you still stand by your comment that the pitcher, the one who died, should be sued for a wrongful death?

No, my point is that it was a tragic accident and an inherent risk of the sport and that no one should have been sued.

[vwgub]

What difference in safety? You get hit by a line drive with a wooden bat or an aluminum bat
you can die.


ETA. Reply to Careyp74

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, my point is that it was a tragic accident and an inherent risk of the sport and that no one should have been sued.

OK, I am just going to accept pretend that:

"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."

was commented knowing that the pitcher was the one that died, and that it was made to say that no one should be sued.

[COLONEL]

Whats next sue the Hockey stick maker, when little Johnney gets hit in the head with a hockey puck . This is whats wrong with this country everyone is sue happy. Now watch, sombody will now sue me because I hurt their feelings with my remarks .

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, the relevant group is the jury, since the jury are the people who are deciding the factual question of whether or not something is common knowledge.

I don't think anyone is debating that. I think people on the thread are giving their opinions of what the jury should have found in that regard.

In any event, I am of the opinion that this case shouldn't have been given to a jury in the first place.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by vwgub

What difference in safety? You get hit by a line drive with a wooden bat or an aluminum bat
you can die.

about the same difference as being shot, and being shot under water. I will let you figure it out from what has been said so far.

ETA: Has anyone ever died from a line drive from a wooden bat?
Also, if you read back you will see that I also feel the suit was unjust, however I am arguing a different point right now, so don't start asking me why I think the company should have been sued.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

about the same difference as being shot, and being shot under water. I will let you figure it out from what has been said so far.

The difference in ball speed isn't that extreme. At least according to the link above.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by COLONEL

Whats next sue the Hockey stick maker, when little Johnney gets hit in the head with a hockey puck . This is whats wrong with this country everyone is sue happy. Now watch, sombody will now sue me because I hurt their feelings with my remarks .

well, according to Wildcat, you can sue yourself if you would like? You did offend yourself to some degree.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The difference in ball speed isn't that extreme. At least according to the link above.

I hate when graphs are displayed that way. I could have sworn the ball speed was a lot different first time I looked at it. But I do still think it is a good comparison.

We should test ball speeds against someones head. Any volunteers?

[vwgub]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, my point is that it was a tragic accident and an inherent risk of the sport and that no one should have been sued.

Exactly what I think. To rephrase my earlier point why is it that when there is a human agency involved in a death it is assumed that that human agency is culpable in the death.


I had to look at that phrase for awhile to convince myself that saying "that that" was ok

[vwgub]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

about the same difference as being shot, and being shot under water. I will let you figure it out from what has been said so far.

What? There is a four mile an hour difference.

[Aoidoi]

Originally Posted by COLONEL

Whats next sue the Hockey stick maker, when little Johnney gets hit in the head with a hockey puck . This is whats wrong with this country everyone is sue happy. Now watch, sombody will now sue me because I hurt their feelings with my remarks .

Hockey requires helmets with full face masks at every level except professional due to (apparently justified) fear of litigation. Oddly enough, hockey appears to be safer in terms of injuries than most other sports. In particular soccer was often sited as having much higher injury rates for an apparently "safer" sport. (Info as of 15 years ago)

Frankly I'm bewildered how you can logically find a product non-defective and then award a large amount of money for someone injured by the product. If the product is fine and was used in the normal manner... how can the company be at fault in any sense? I don't get the legal or logical basis for this at all, though clearly the emotional one trumped them anyway.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by vwgub

What? There is a four mile an hour difference.

The fact that there is a noticeable difference, and this difference caused a severe enough head injury to kill, would give enough plausibility to the statement that aluminum bats are more dangerous, and the game therefore is less safe.

ETA:This is why I put partial blame on the coordinators involved.

[vwgub]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

about the same difference as being shot, and being shot under water. I will let you figure it out from what has been said so far.

ETA: Has anyone ever died from a line drive from a wooden bat?
Also, if you read back you will see that I also feel the suit was unjust, however I am arguing a different point right now, so don't start asking me why I think the company should have been sued.

Yeah I see what your arguing. I think that Wildcat was being sarcastic on the whole sue the pitcher thing.(Could be wrong, could be just talking out of my ass, wouldn't be the first time)

[vwgub]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

The fact that there is a noticeable difference, and this difference caused a severe enough head injury to kill, would give enough plausibility to the statement that aluminum bats are more dangerous, and the game therefore is less safe.

ETA:This is why I put partial blame on the coordinators involved.

I don't think there is any appreciable difference in the speed, only in the contact point with the skull.



ETA. Sorry I have to go. Be back later.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Has anyone ever died from a line drive from a wooden bat?

Yes. This 2007 incident in the minor leagues is just one example

Quote:

Sunday night, Mike Coolbaugh, the first base coach for the Tulsa Drillers, was killed when he was hit in the head by a line drive during a game. He was 35. He is a former major leaguer, a great athlete with great reflexes. And he had no time to get out of the way.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

Has there never been a baseball player (whether youth or pro) killed by a line drive off of a wooden bat?

Plenty of them, as well as spectators. Here's a link to one instance of a wooden bat shattering and injuring a woman, so you can't win either way. It also talks about a death from a foul ball using a wooden bat. I remember there was a minor league first baseman killed by a ball to the head a few years ago too, although I can't recall his name right now.

It's really very unlikely that this aluminum bat had anything to do with this young man's death. And even if it did, the lawsuit is ridiculous. They knew what the bat was used for: hitting balls at high velocity towards players on the opposing team. You play, you accept the risk.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun...sp-foulballs17

"In April, Susan Rhodes of Sherman Oaks, sitting four rows behind the first base dugout at Dodger Stadium, suffered a concussion and facial injuries when a wooden bat swung by Todd Helton of the Colorado Rockies shattered, sending part of it into the stands. And last summer, first base coach Mike Coolbaugh of the double-A Tulsa Drillers was killed when he was hit in the head by a foul ball during a game."

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

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

Exactly. Taking money from a "rich" corporation and awarding it to a family that just suffered a heartbreaking loss is something that juries frequently do, regardless of whether they actually believe there is any merit. "The company can afford it, and this family is in pain".

When all the effects of the decision shake out, it can indeed have very major impacts.

[MikeMangum]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

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

So basically, you are arguing that no one (but the seller) is responsible for using common sense.

Does Henckels need to include warnings on their knives that state "juggling knives can result in permanent injury or death" or "do not use to apply mascara"? I mean, really, unless the consumer is told by the manufacturer, how could they possibly know if something is dangerous? Do light bulb manufacturers need to include "do not insert into rectum" and "do not smash lightbulb into face" on warning labels? Does a car need to come with a warning label that says "Do not operate vehicle while blindfolded", "do not smash penis with car door", and "do not lick engine block while engine is running"? If I decide to use Coke as brake fluid in my car and subsequently become involved in an accident, is Coca Cola corp responsible because they didn't warn me about the danger?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It seems that every death must be someone's fault. Why must there always be someone to blame? Why would a family want to drag out their grieving process for years during civil proceedings? I could see it if there was some obvious negligence, to punish those at fault, but this case seems to be really out to lunch.


Sometimes unfortunate, tragic things happen. It's not always someone's fault. Sometimes it's just an accident.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

Has there never been a baseball player (whether youth or pro) killed by a line drive off of a wooden bat?

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

Plenty of them, as well as spectators. Here's a link to one instance of a wooden bat shattering and injuring a woman, so you can't win either way. It also talks about a death from a foul ball using a wooden bat. I remember there was a minor league first baseman killed by a ball to the head a few years ago too, although I can't recall his name right now.

Of course baseball players have been killed just from a thrown pitch:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517877,00.html

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

The fact that there is a noticeable difference, and this difference caused a severe enough head injury to kill, would give enough plausibility to the statement that aluminum bats are more dangerous, and the game therefore is less safe.

ETA:This is why I put partial blame on the coordinators involved.

I haven't followed the case closely, but was it demonstrated that if the incident had happened with the ball travelling four mph slower the boy would've survived? Proving that seems be the only way you could reasonably conclude that the difference is what caused the death.

I find this whole case ridiculous. Mostly because except for the maximum, wooden and aluminum bats have an equal range of ball speed. Consider the power of the pitcher and hitter "making" up for the type of bat involved. I doubt these kids were strong enough to make that ball speed beyond the maximum possible speed attained with a wooden bat. So, switch to a wooden bat but a slightly more powerful hitter and you get the exact same ball speed, and the same death.

Originally Posted by drkitten

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.

I would've focused on the common knowledge that a fast-moving object of decent mass can be dangerous. The difference of speed between aluminum and wooden would/should only have decided the case if the ball speed that hit the kid were impossible to achieve using a wooden bat.

[quadraginta]

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.

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.



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").

Of course I wouldn't have made that statement to a jury, but, as you noted, I wasn't addressing a jury.

Your comment about lawyer competence is a question I have as well. It would not have required Perry Mason's cross examination skills to elicit testimony regarding the ubiquity of understanding about the features of metal bats. No one with more than passing knowledge of the sport could have said otherwise on the stand without perjuring themselves. Certainly not anyone actually involved at any organized level. My statement was not phrased to assuage the tender sensibilities of a jury, but it was quite accurate.

Once it was established (as should have quite easily been done) that no one involved in the regulation of organized baseball was the least bit ignorant of this predominant characteristic of metal bats there should have been no confusion that the manufacturer of the bats was in any way responsible for the organization choosing to use those bats. Or for the players electing to participate in such an organization. Every single one of those people would have been quite aware of the issues. Although I suspect, sadly, that it would not have diminished jury sympathy for the bereaved (which shouldn't be a consideration in the first place) I doubt that even the boy's family could have testified to owning such ignorance without some of them perjuring themselves.

There just isn't a remotely plausible hook anywhere to hang culpability on the manufacturer. If culpability even exists in this case. There is a plethora of such in the choices made by nearly everyone else involved in the process.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

I haven't followed the case closely, but was it demonstrated that if the incident had happened with the ball travelling four mph slower the boy would've survived? Proving that seems be the only way you could reasonably conclude that the difference is what caused the death.

I find this whole case ridiculous. Mostly because except for the maximum, wooden and aluminum bats have an equal range of ball speed. Consider the power of the pitcher and hitter "making" up for the type of bat involved. I doubt these kids were strong enough to make that ball speed beyond the maximum possible speed attained with a wooden bat. So, switch to a wooden bat but a slightly more powerful hitter and you get the exact same ball speed, and the same death.



I would've focused on the common knowledge that a fast-moving object of decent mass can be dangerous. The difference of speed between aluminum and wooden would/should only have decided the case if the ball speed that hit the kid were impossible to achieve using a wooden bat.

The issue I have is that I don't think that the manufacturer of devices with the potential to enhance performance should be held accountable for every single circumstance where those devices might be involved. Especially when said enhancement is a commonly known feature of the device.

If the kid had been riding a 10 speed bike and crashed it into a tree, would the jury have found Schwinn at fault for selling bikes with derailleur gears?

Well, maybe I phrased that wrong. Should they have?

[COLONEL]

I guess what realy bothers me ,is it seems no one has any common sense when it comes to cases like these .No one wants to take responsibilaty for their own mistakes or problems , It's all about who they can blame .If the company that made the bat can't win an appeal then there is going to be a whole new can of worms opened up .People will sue over anything . I think I will sue the phone company for not warning me about telemarketers ,or how about I sue Good/year for not warning me my tire would go flat if I ran over a nail .last but not least I sue the butcher for not putting a warning label saying that I could choke if I don't chew my steak up real well.

All kidding a side I say people need to start using common sense.

[Dragoonster]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

The issue I have is that I don't think that the manufacturer of devices with the potential to enhance performance should be held accountable for every single circumstance where those devices might be involved. Especially when said enhancement is a commonly known feature of the device.

If the kid had been riding a 10 speed bike and crashed it into a tree, would the jury have found Schwinn at fault for selling bikes with derailleur gears?

Well, maybe I phrased that wrong. Should they have?

Nope, and I completely agree. The case is wrong to me for two reasons: Primarily the idea that someone playing baseball isn't aware that baseballs hit from bats are dangerous, or needs to be informed that they are. If they're dangerous enough to win a lawsuit, then the entire sport should be banned. Or if people are so stupid they need a warning label on a bat, then we need to mandate warning labels on every moving object.

Secondarily is the strange distinction between aluminum and wooden bats. If aluminum bats need a label/are liable to lawsuit, then so should/are wooden bats, as they can deliver just as fast a ball except in maximum range. The whole case and all ideas behind it are terrible, and it's just shocking that the plaintiffs actually won.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

about the same difference as being shot, and being shot under water. I will let you figure it out from what has been said so far.

.

I seem to recall from Mythbusters that neither way of getting shot was healthy for the intended target.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by 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.

Which I find kind of weird. The boys personal decisions factor in to the extent of the injuries so much less than in the other case.

[paiute]

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.

Many patriotic Americans fought and died for the right to have their grievances heard by a jury of their peers, but all I hear from you all is kneejerk p***ing and moaning at every other poorly-summarized verdict. Why do you hate America so much?

For a statistical analysis of the influence of the aluminum bat in the college game, see
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/...CAA-stats.html

In the above, note the dramatic increase in batting average with the introduction of the aluminum bat. This is in large part due to the increase in the velocity of the ball off of the bat. Bear in mind that the additional hits are due to the inability of an infielder or an outfielder - both much farther away from the batter than the pitcher - to get to the ball due to the slight increase in velocity. So to argue that a pitcher only 60'6'' away should see no difference between the two balls is not reasonable.

As a batter, I can tell you that the difference between a 88 mph pitch and a 92 mph pitch (quoted in one reply here as the average velocity of the two batted balls at the pitcher's mound) is not insignificant.

[GreyICE]

Also kinetic energy increases very much faster than velocity. A 20% increase in velocity gives almost a 50% increase in energy.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by paiute

Many patriotic Americans fought and died for the right to have their grievances heard by a jury of their peers, but all I hear from you all is kneejerk p***ing and moaning at every other poorly-summarized verdict. Why do you hate America so much?

For a statistical analysis of the influence of the aluminum bat in the college game, see
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/NCAA-stats.html

In the above, note the dramatic increase in batting average with the introduction of the aluminum bat. This is in large part due to the increase in the velocity of the ball off of the bat. Bear in mind that the additional hits are due to the inability of an infielder or an outfielder - both much farther away from the batter than the pitcher - to get to the ball due to the slight increase in velocity. So to argue that a pitcher only 60'6'' away should see no difference between the two balls is not reasonable.

As a batter, I can tell you that the difference between a 88 mph pitch and a 92 mph pitch (quoted in one reply here as the average velocity of the two batted balls at the pitcher's mound) is not insignificant.

It would probably help you if you read farther into the thread before weighing in.

[Careyp74]

Wow, you guys were busy this weekend. I won't quote, too many different posts, but I think the point I made wasn't exact enough. Again, any data to the contrary is appreciated.

So, we have a little league, where kids hit with less speed and strength than minor and major league players. This results in fewer (if any) wooden bats breaking, and fewer casualties from being hit by a ball.

When little league organizers allow aluminum bats into the league, it was for two reasons: Center of gravity difference and longer hits. (source:little league coach in the office) This would result in the ball getting past short stop more often, allowing for a better game than no one getting on base and the game being boring.

Now, seasoned little league players don't have the problems of not swinging the bat well, and not hitting the ball far. They are still allowed to use aluminum bats, after all, little league is little league. Anyone ever watch a LLWS championship game? That previous statement is far from accurate.

Point being, in the case of little league, where parents who drop off their kids to play and assume a certain level of safety, those parents aren't getting what they pay for when the rules are changed without them knowing the dangers involved.

I don't care what happens to bats breaking in major league games and killing people, that is out of context to the situation here.

Again, I don't think the bat company is at all to blame for this incident. I feel there is a bit of negligence on the organizer's part.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by paiute

Many patriotic Americans fought and died for the right to have their grievances heard by a jury of their peers, but all I hear from you all is kneejerk p***ing and moaning at every other poorly-summarized verdict. Why do you hate America so much?

Jury pools are chosen at random from the general population. In a society where large segments of the population buy homeopathic remedies, consult astrological charts, believe in grand conspiracy theories, or that the universe was created in one week about 6,000 years ago.

I believe that for the most part, juries do a good job. But why would you believe that every jury picked from this population will make it's decision based on the evidence, science and logic?

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

It seems that every death must be someone's fault. Why must there always be someone to blame? Why would a family want to drag out their grieving process for years during civil proceedings? I could see it if there was some obvious negligence, to punish those at fault, but this case seems to be really out to lunch.


Sometimes unfortunate, tragic things happen. It's not always someone's fault. Sometimes it's just an accident.

Society is not filled with bright people, and intelligence goes down during traumatic events. That is why the jury is there, to be the sane collection of peers that make the ruling. I guess the system is not perfect.