This jury was "out of the park".

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by paiute

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.

I don't disagree but one problem with this case is that the plaintiff has the burden to show that but for the bat, there would have been no injury. I don't think such a burden could be met under most circumstances. The wind, the speed of the pitch, the strength of the batter, the strength of that particular swing, and the angle at which the ball hit the bat all play a part in the speed of the line drive.

How could one reasonably say, "But for the bat, the injury would not have happened?"

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

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

Not at all.

Quote:

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?

All (sharp) knifes are approximately equally dangerous to juggle; henckels isn't making knifes that are more dangerous than the rest of the industry.

On the other hand, everyone here is pointing out that, yes, aluminium bats do hit harder (and are therefore more dangerous) than wooden ones.

I don't see how "common sense" is supposed to tell me which bats are particularly dangerous.

[Toke]

Quote:

How could one reasonably say, "But for the bat, the injury would not have happened?"

How could the injury have happened if he had not been holding a bat.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

All (sharp) knifes are approximately equally dangerous to juggle; henckels isn't making knifes that are more dangerous than the rest of the industry.

On the other hand, everyone here is pointing out that, yes, aluminium bats do hit harder (and are therefore more dangerous) than wooden ones.

I don't see how "common sense" is supposed to tell me which bats are particularly dangerous.

The thing here is that the alluminum bats made by this company are not uniquely dangerous, rather typical for alluminum bats. As for the improved performance of metal over wood, this would be something like metal vs ceramic knives.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not at all.



All (sharp) knifes are approximately equally dangerous to juggle; henckels isn't making knifes that are more dangerous than the rest of the industry.

On the other hand, everyone here is pointing out that, yes, aluminium bats do hit harder (and are therefore more dangerous) than wooden ones.

I don't see how "common sense" is supposed to tell me which bats are particularly dangerous.

Comparing metal bats to wood bats is analogous to comparing "(sharp) knifes" to dull ones.

To extend your analogy, yes, there may be people whose knowledge of knives is sufficiently limited that "common sense" might not be enough to aid their understanding that sharp knives cut more readily than dull ones, but within the community of knife users that statement is not true.

The baseball community is equally aware of the difference between bats. This is why the bat manufacturers are not responsible for any failure of "common sense".

If there is fault to be found, (which I question, but that wasn't what I brought up the subject to address) it must needs be found among those people who elected to use metal bats in the full awareness of their commonly known (within the baseball community) features.

I understand that some if not all (although I find the latter unlikely) of the jury in this case might have been unaware of the features and history of metal bats at the outset of the trial, but I find it difficult to believe that they were by its conclusion. I did mention that it would be nice to see transcripts of the trial.

In view of the probable education that they would have received during the course of the trial the conclusion drawn by them would seem to lack foundation.

[Region Rat]

To the people (full disclosure- not me) who are agreeing that the jury verdict is correct, and are agreeing that aluminum bats pose a greater risk of death than wooden bats, do you believe that aluminum bats should be outlawed?

To me, that can be the only outcome. If the 4 mph difference in maximum velocity is posing an inherent risk, you must agree that they should be banned from baseball. How can this not be the case? How can you be sure that every single ball player is fully knowledgable of and specifically assuming the increased risk of death when aluminum bats are being used?

But no, you will not see aluminum bats being banned. You will just see the prices go up a little to offset the loss due to the verdict, assuming it doesn't get overturned. And the parents of a dead kid will be able to retire in comfort to help ease the accidental loss of their kid.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Region Rat

To the people (full disclosure- not me) who are agreeing that the jury verdict is correct, and are agreeing that aluminum bats pose a greater risk of death than wooden bats, do you believe that aluminum bats should be outlawed?

To me, that can be the only outcome. If the 4 mph difference in maximum velocity is posing an inherent risk, you must agree that they should be banned from baseball.

Not at all. The whole point of "acceptable risk" is that one can knowingly "accept" almost any degree of risk as long as that risk is made clear to the person using it.

Quote:

How can you be sure that every single ball player is fully knowledgable of and specifically assuming the increased risk of death when aluminum bats are being used?

Delegation of supervisory authority. The manufacturer needs to make sure that the buyer (in this case, presumably the league) is aware of the relevant risks. The league needs to make sure that the players [and in this case, their parents as well, since the players are minors] are aware of the relevant risks.

There's lots of precedent detailing what's expected in the case of inherently risky activities. When you rent a pair of skis, you'll be handed a sheet telling you in detail that skiing is inherently risk and detailing some of the activities you are expected to take in order to ski safely. If someone developed a new high-speed ski "for experts only" and marketed it as such, it wouldn't be there problem if a novice knowingly rented a pair of skis that were too much for him/her. But if the novice can't tell the difference between high-performance skis and "normal" skis, there would be a problem.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

To extend your analogy, yes, there may be people whose knowledge of knives is sufficiently limited that "common sense" might not be enough to aid their understanding that sharp knives cut more readily than dull ones, but within the community of knife users that statement is not true.

The baseball community is equally aware of the difference between bats.

And that's what I'm not willing to accept.

The kids almost certainly aren't aware of that -- by definition, these are children learning baseball and aren't familiar with the nuances of equipment. I'm not willing to accept that the parents and coaches are necessarily members of the baseball "community" either; these are, for the most part, ordinary citizens who don't necessarily have the specialized knowledge.

The thing about knives is that literally everyone has knives in their house. I doubt you could find a hundred working kitchens in the United States that don't keep knives. I'd be surprised if 80% or more of US households had a baseball bat -- or that 50% have an aluminum bat.

So you can't assume that knowledge of the increased dangers posed by aluminum bats is universal.

Quote:

This is why the bat manufacturers are not responsible for any failure of "common sense".

No. The reason that bat manufacturers are not responsible for any failure of common sense is because common sense doesn't enter into it.

And they are responsible if they irresponsibly treat specialist knowledge about dangers as "common sense" and someone gets hurt by it.

So it comes down to the question of whether or not it's "common sense" that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wooden ones. Which is a factual question for the jury to decide.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Region Rat

To the people (full disclosure- not me) who are agreeing that the jury verdict is correct, and are agreeing that aluminum bats pose a greater risk of death than wooden bats, do you believe that aluminum bats should be outlawed?

To me, that can be the only outcome. If the 4 mph difference in maximum velocity is posing an inherent risk, you must agree that they should be banned from baseball. How can this not be the case? How can you be sure that every single ball player is fully knowledgable of and specifically assuming the increased risk of death when aluminum bats are being used?

But no, you will not see aluminum bats being banned. You will just see the prices go up a little to offset the loss due to the verdict, assuming it doesn't get overturned. And the parents of a dead kid will be able to retire in comfort to help ease the accidental loss of their kid.

Well, they are banned from major and minor league use. So........

[JenseitsDavon]

Are these people serious? The *point* of the game is to hit a small, hard object with a long, hard object to make it go as far as possible. And hey, if you put your head in front of it, bad things happen. It's like having someone on a shotgun range waiting to catch the missed pigeons. Sooner or later, somebody's gonna get hurt. Would they prefer the bats be made from wet noodles?

[Region Rat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Well, they are banned from major and minor league use. So........

They were not 'banned' in the sense that they were used and that use was stopped. They were not accepted for use in the majors due to concerns about records, not the safety aspects.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by JenseitsDavon

Are these people serious? The *point* of the game is to hit a small, hard object with a long, hard object to make it go as far as possible. And hey, if you put your head in front of it, bad things happen. It's like having someone on a shotgun range waiting to catch the missed pigeons. Sooner or later, somebody's gonna get hurt.

Er,... no.

Just because a sport is inherently dangerous is not licence to make it more dangerous than necessary. Skiing is inherently dangerous, but a manufacturer who made skis out of plate glass wouldn't be able to say "hey, sooner or later someone's gonna get hurt" if the skis broke and cut someone. Because while the risk of falling down is inherent to skiing, the risk of your skis shattering into razor sharp glass shards is not.

[Whiplash]

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?

That depends how deep the pockets are of anyone who can be tied or linked to the event in question, and how slimy the legal professionals involved in the process are.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er,... no.

Just because a sport is inherently dangerous is not licence to make it more dangerous than necessary. Skiing is inherently dangerous, but a manufacturer who made skis out of plate glass wouldn't be able to say "hey, sooner or later someone's gonna get hurt" if the skis broke and cut someone. Because while the risk of falling down is inherent to skiing, the risk of your skis shattering into razor sharp glass shards is not.

The relative risk change would be pretty margional between wooden bats and metal. Sure you will get a higher precentage of good hits from the larger sweetspot and such, but the energy levels are not greatly different. CLearly what he needed was to wear a helmet and maybe chest protector, not anything with the bat.

[KingMerv00]

Dr. K,

Usually you and I are in agreement on legal stuff but this time we aren't. When you get a chance, could you please comment on the issues I raised above:

1) It is impossible to prove more likely than not that the injury would not have occurred but for the material of the bat.

and/or

2) It is impossible to prove more likely than not that the injury would not have occurred but for the lack of warning.

If the plaintiff cannot satisfy the above, the case should never have gone to court as a matter of law.

[Xulld]

I myself think its unimportant that its general knowledge that aluminum bats hit balls faster. No one that watches a ball fly past a player at high speed from any kind of bat has any illusions to the danger of the sport.

I think the first responsibility for safety is in the hands of the league that sponsors a particular product putting it out onto there fields. Of course leagues, especially amateur leagues dont have big bucks to sue over . . .

Secondly, how much faster are we talking? If you where hit in the head from a home run powered hit from a wood bat . . . wouldn't that kill you just as dead if it hit you right?


Correct me if I am wrong, but this suit was won because aluminum bats can on average hit a ball about 5 MPH faster . . . Oh noes lets sue gas makers over supreme because with higher octane we can drive about that much faster . . .

[Meadmaker]

There's a reason that kids mostly play soccer these days instead of baseball. I believe the injury rate is higher, and I suspect the fatality rate is as high (I could be wrong about that), but when there is an injury in soccer, it is caused by a collision with another child, or with the ground. There's no one to sue. Therefore, liability insurance is lower.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Originally Posted by quadraginta

To extend your analogy, yes, there may be people whose knowledge of knives is sufficiently limited that "common sense" might not be enough to aid their understanding that sharp knives cut more readily than dull ones, but within the community of knife users that statement is not true.

The baseball community is equally aware of the difference between bats.

And that's what I'm not willing to accept.

I see that, but I don't understand why. If I were to make the statement, "The golfing community is equally aware of the difference between drivers and irons." would you find that equally implausible? How about, "The horseback riding community is equally aware of the difference between bits and hackamores."?

Do you think that if someone learning to play golf were to hit a person while using a driver that the injured party has reason to hold the club manufacturer at fault? After all, if he had been using an iron the accident might not have happened.

Quote:

The kids almost certainly aren't aware of that -- by definition, these are children learning baseball and aren't familiar with the nuances of equipment.

I'd gloss over the datum that the injured party in this case wasn't exactly a "kid", being 18 yrs. old, but since you bring it up, in the hands of "kids" the bats are not at the extreme of their performance capabilities. As was pointed out earlier in this thread Little League groups have been known to choose to use metal bats specifically because of their superior hitting qualities.

Quote:

I'm not willing to accept that the parents and coaches are necessarily members of the baseball "community" either; these are, for the most part, ordinary citizens who don't necessarily have the specialized knowledge.

I would be willing to concede the point concerning parents, but not coaches. The ubiquity of this knowledge is much greater than you seem to be aware. What would you think of a golf coach who was unaware of the difference between a driver and an iron. If such a lack did exist in a coach, would you fault the club manufacturer?

Quote:

The thing about knives is that literally everyone has knives in their house. I doubt you could find a hundred working kitchens in the United States that don't keep knives. I'd be surprised if 80% or more of US households had a baseball bat -- or that 50% have an aluminum bat.

So you can't assume that knowledge of the increased dangers posed by aluminum bats is universal.

I don't assume that any knowledge is "universal", which implies a degree of perfection that isn't really germane to this, but I think it is reasonable to state that a certain general awareness of a fact can be expected within certain groups. What we're discussing is alleged culpability on the part of the manufacturer for failing due diligence in making the performance characteristics of their product known. I do say it can be easily demonstrated that these characteristics are known, commonly known among people involved in the sport and have been known since the first use of metal bats.

You suggest that this knowledge about metal bats is somehow "specialized". I suggest that it is no more specialized among people involved in baseball than knowing that a driver can hit farther than an iron is in golf.

Quote:

Quote:

This is why the bat manufacturers are not responsible for any failure of "common sense".

No. The reason that bat manufacturers are not responsible for any failure of common sense is because common sense doesn't enter into it.

I think if you review the "common sense" issue you will see that we are largely in agreement on that point. I was responding to your response to MM's usage.

Quote:

And they are responsible if they irresponsibly treat specialist knowledge about dangers as "common sense" and someone gets hurt by it.

I would concur were this to be the case. My contention is that there was no "specialist knowledge" among the participants involved in the sports group itself, regardless of parental understanding, and therefore the manufacturer cannot be alleged to be "irresponsible". "Specialist" knowledge might pertain, say, to knowledge that the 'sweet spot' on a Rawlings metal bat behaved differently than that of a Wilson, not that metal bats in general performed better than wood ones. If the ubiquity of this knowledge was not made clear to a possibly un-knowledgeable jury then a very poor case was presented, if it was then the jury's decision was unconscionable.

Quote:

So it comes down to the question of whether or not it's "common sense" that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wooden ones. Which is a factual question for the jury to decide.

As both of us have now agreed, "common sense" is not at issue. The contention is whether the manufacturer was somehow primarily delinquent for not having exercised greater effort than they did to highlight the performance differences of metal bats.

I content that they weren't delinquent, and even more, that they probably couldn't' have done more. The subject has been nearly worn out. Decades of argument, rule making, and litigation exist on local, state, and national levels about both the performance characteristics and the potential dangers of metal bats.

If the coaches and organizers of a baseball group are unaware of the debate it cannot be the fault of the manufacturer. At some point no amount of effort will overcome profound, willful ignorance. If there are people presenting themselves as qualified to be coaches without this knowledge then they are misrepresenting their qualifications. How can that misrepresentation be the fault of the manufacturer?

Let's try this from a different perspective. What further steps could the manufacturer have taken which would have ameliorated this alleged lack of diligence? A sticker on the bat? How will that be a warning to anyone who is not participating in the sport. Is it reasonable to think that someone who is involved in the sport and has somehow managed to elude an awareness of an issue which has been a major area of discussion for over a generation will have some sort of epiphany upon seeing such a sticker and suddenly rush out to stop the game?

It's not like a public discussion would help. That's been established, because the discussion has been going on at all levels of participation and fandom since the first metal bats were offered more than three decades ago..

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er,... no.

Just because a sport is inherently dangerous is not licence to make it more dangerous than necessary. Skiing is inherently dangerous, but a manufacturer who made skis out of plate glass wouldn't be able to say "hey, sooner or later someone's gonna get hurt" if the skis broke and cut someone. Because while the risk of falling down is inherent to skiing, the risk of your skis shattering into razor sharp glass shards is not.

That's not a very appropriate analogy either, and I expect you know that.

Let's clean it up a bit. My father skied at Dartmouth. At the time (late 40's) it was accepted knowledge that skis should be approximately as long as the skier was tall, and my father is a tall man. They were made of wood. No other more suitable material was available. (Glass was available, but as you so cogently point out, not suitable.) Very little engineering was involved in the shape and form characteristics.

Years go by. Fiberglass and carbon fiber and Kevlar become available. These new materials combined with advances in design engineering facilitate much faster skis.

Sonny Bono, only five younger than my father, skied into a tree in 1998. If he had been unaware that modern skis were faster would the ski manufacturer be culpable?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by drkitten

All (sharp) knifes are approximately equally dangerous to juggle; henckels isn't making knifes that are more dangerous than the rest of the industry.

All (aluminum) baseball bats are approximately equally dangerous to use; Louisville isn't making baseball bats that are more dangerous than the rest of the industry.

There are many companies that make aluminum baseball bats.

Henckels makes some knives that are more dangerous than others. Big ones, small ones, serrated, etc. They are all used to cut things. Some may have a little more risk of injury than others.

Baseball bat manufactures make different types of bats. Big ones, small ones, wooden, aluminum, etc. They are all used to hit baseballs. Some may have a little more risk of injury than others.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Region Rat

They were not 'banned' in the sense that they were used and that use was stopped. They were not accepted for use in the majors due to concerns about records, not the safety aspects.

this press release
http://www.nyssf.org/baseballbats.html
came out in 2002, before the incident occurred.

"It is a story that is remarkably familiar. It starts with an unsafe product, one that is manipulated to achieve a specific purpose. The manufacturer has full knowledge of its danger, yet safety considerations are blatantly ignored. Cosmetic and disingenuous changes are offered in hopes that overseeing entities will be satisfied. Half-truths, deception and lies abound. Kids and teenagers make up a large portion of the target audience. And, oh yes, then there is the money. Not billions this time, only hundreds of millions. There is an individual, an insider, who at first was paid an extremely lucrative salary to master the product, only to become cognizant of its destructive ways and who now leads the fight to shed light on the greed and to prevent additional tragedies."

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Years go by. Fiberglass and carbon fiber and Kevlar become available. These new materials combined with advances in design engineering facilitate much faster skis.

Sonny Bono, only five younger than my father, skied into a tree in 1998. If he had been unaware that modern skis were faster would the ski manufacturer be culpable?

I have never ski'd before in my life, but it is a big part of your point so I have to ask, is this true? Modern skis are faster? Not doubting you, but asking for data.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I have never ski'd before in my life, but it is a big part of your point so I have to ask, is this true? Modern skis are faster? Not doubting you, but asking for data.

Modern ski equipment is far easier to turn and control. The gear allows relatively inexperienced skiers to ski faster and on more difficult slopes. In this respect, it's a lot like the lighter aluminum bats making it easier for a novice to hit a baseball past the infield.

[COLONEL]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

That's not a very appropriate analogy either, and I expect you know that.

Let's clean it up a bit. My father skied at Dartmouth. At the time (late 40's) it was accepted knowledge that skis should be approximately as long as the skier was tall, and my father is a tall man. They were made of wood. No other more suitable material was available. (Glass was available, but as you so cogently point out, not suitable.) Very little engineering was involved in the shape and form characteristics.

Years go by. Fiberglass and carbon fiber and Kevlar become available. These new materials combined with advances in design engineering facilitate much faster skis.

Sonny Bono, only five younger than my father, skied into a tree in 1998. If he had been unaware that modern skis were faster would the ski manufacturer be culpable?

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I have never ski'd before in my life, but it is a big part of your point so I have to ask, is this true? Modern skis are faster? Not doubting you, but asking for data.

Well as a person that grew up skiing In Vermont I would say from expierence that it's true . the new skis being lighter and creating less drag in the snow,are faster .I also just read where Canada is going to make it mandatory that you will have to wear a helmet while skiing .I can't see where a helmet will do any good, when most skiing accidents involve getting a broken leg, but thats just my opinion .

[Region Rat]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

this press release
http://www.nyssf.org/baseballbats.html
came out in 2002, before the incident occurred.

"It is a story that is remarkably familiar. It starts with an unsafe product, one that is manipulated to achieve a specific purpose. The manufacturer has full knowledge of its danger, yet safety considerations are blatantly ignored. Cosmetic and disingenuous changes are offered in hopes that overseeing entities will be satisfied. Half-truths, deception and lies abound. Kids and teenagers make up a large portion of the target audience. And, oh yes, then there is the money. Not billions this time, only hundreds of millions. There is an individual, an insider, who at first was paid an extremely lucrative salary to master the product, only to become cognizant of its destructive ways and who now leads the fight to shed light on the greed and to prevent additional tragedies."

Your article has nothing to do with my statement regarding major league baseball. I'm not sure why you posted it in response.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Modern ski equipment is far easier to turn and control. The gear allows relatively inexperienced skiers to ski faster and on more difficult slopes. In this respect, it's a lot like the lighter aluminum bats making it easier for a novice to hit a baseball past the infield.

It is not so much that the bats are lighter, it is that the aluminum is a more effecient energy storing and tranfering material than wood in this sort of impact.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

this press release
http://www.nyssf.org/baseballbats.html
came out in 2002, before the incident occurred.

"It is a story that is remarkably familiar. It starts with an unsafe product, one that is manipulated to achieve a specific purpose. The manufacturer has full knowledge of its danger, yet safety considerations are blatantly ignored. Cosmetic and disingenuous changes are offered in hopes that overseeing entities will be satisfied. Half-truths, deception and lies abound. Kids and teenagers make up a large portion of the target audience. And, oh yes, then there is the money. Not billions this time, only hundreds of millions. There is an individual, an insider, who at first was paid an extremely lucrative salary to master the product, only to become cognizant of its destructive ways and who now leads the fight to shed light on the greed and to prevent additional tragedies."

Why is it the bat, the numbers used in there seem remarkably different from other numbers, so I am not sure that the 25% difference in speed they mention is reliable, given that it is not a citation.

People have died playing baseball for ages, when they get hit in the head or chest with the ball. Having batters wear helmets was a start to bring safety equipment into the game why not have all players wear hemlets and chest protectors all the time? That would really do something about these risks, a lot more than blaming it all on the few percent difference in energy most studies seem to find.

I am not sure at all that the difference in maximum performance between aluminum and wood bats is any different from the difference between dry balls and balls from a humidifier.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why is it the bat, the numbers used in there seem remarkably different from other numbers, so I am not sure that the 25% difference in speed they mention is reliable, given that it is not a citation.

Based on the other numbers we have seen and the lack of a citation, I would call it bunk.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Based on the other numbers we have seen and the lack of a citation, I would call it bunk.

The main source of risk increase would seem to be from the expanded sweet spot on the bat, so you will get more high speed hits, but the speed of those hits will not be so radicaly different from what is possible with wood bats.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by COLONEL

Well as a person that grew up skiing In Vermont I would say from expierence that it's true . the new skis being lighter and creating less drag in the snow,are faster .I also just read where Canada is going to make it mandatory that you will have to wear a helmet while skiing .I can't see where a helmet will do any good, when most skiing accidents involve getting a broken leg, but thats just my opinion .

I suppose it's because a large proportion of fatal ski accidents involve head injuries.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3370085

If helmets reduce the head injuries then they may reduce deaths

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Region Rat

Your article has nothing to do with my statement regarding major league baseball. I'm not sure why you posted it in response.

Right, sorry about that. I started commenting, and upon discovery of further info the original comment was edited out.

ETA:I think you have the onus in this case to prove that point, btw.

Here is some info for the opposing side.
http://www.playballmn.com/topic.aspx?id=7
Talks about the decision to use aluminum bats, and why.

[Careyp74]

And more for banning metal bats:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...n/basebal2.pdf

This has been an ongoing fight in the industry. Never heard of it before now.

[Meadmaker]

I did some looking. It seems that soccer has more injuries, baseball has more serious injuries. Fatality rates are harder to judge based on small sample size, but appear to be roughly equal.

Based on that, liability costs ought to be about the same, but they aren't.

[casebro]

The bat case was won because the "victim" was a cute young child.

Oh, he might have been an ugly teenager, but I'll bet you he was presented to the jury as a "innocent young child, struck down while innocently playing America's National Past time".

Parents of young child wins, EVIL TRAITOROUS CORPORATION loses.

Nothing to do with liability, everything to do with emotions.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by casebro

The bat case was won because the "victim" was a cute young child.

Oh, he might have been an ugly teenager, but I'll bet you he was presented to the jury as a "innocent young child, struck down while innocently playing America's National Past time".

Parents of young child wins, EVIL TRAITOROUS CORPORATION loses.

Nothing to do with liability, everything to do with emotions.

Have you read the pdf link above? Evil corporation is right!

[COLONEL]

With out going back and reading every post, has any one mentioned that wooden bats break and players have been injured when the bat breaks in half as pieces go flying .so to me there is no differance as one being more dangerous then the other .

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by COLONEL

With out going back and reading every post, has any one mentioned that wooden bats break and players have been injured when the bat breaks in half as pieces go flying .so to me there is no differance as one being more dangerous then the other .

I think so, but I'd have to go back and look to be sure, myself. Any mention was in passing.

It's interesting that you bring it up, though. One of current safety debates in pro ball is whether or not maple bats should continue to be allowed. Maple was added to ash and hickory as a permitted bat material in pro ball about 10 years ago. Several records have been made using them. The problem is that unlike ash and hickory, which simply break, maple can shatter, sometimes rather spectacularly.

That discussion continues.

[HarryHenderson]

Warning: This post is too wordy, possibly a little contemptuous and a bit more personal (to me) than it appears. Way back-in-the-day baseball was my life, and one of the few things I really cared about. I played it for many years and had all manner of opinions about it then and even more so now - and I subject you to a little of such here. And truly, no offense to anyone is meant even when it's implied.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

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

Arguably the best, and most succinct post in the thread - and right at the beginning too.

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.

Although it's mentioned again (albeit incorrectly) further down from this particular post, Mythbusters™ experiments in this area actually proved bullets from almost ANY human-held type GUN shot into water went but barely a few feet once they hit the water. Essentially, the safety of being in water when being shot-at wasn't just potentially helpful, but completely and totally helpful - to the point one could expect to be totally unharmed if he could remain at least a few feet away from where the bullets actually enter the water. Solely just a POI. I remember the episode well due to my initial disbelief.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

ETA: Has anyone ever died from a line drive from a wooden bat?...

And not just from a line drive from wooden bat, but by simply playing catch before a game and the ball hitting the chest. (actual experience - 1971 Little League)

Originally Posted by Sir Robin Goodfellow

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

While needing to discreetly deny my specific association (and not the incident above) with this notion, I can tell you it's 100% true. At least in the 'real world'. Blame the cosmic gods, or 'the nature of things', or even our present day society, but not everything has at its roots a human as the sole liable culprit.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Of course baseball players have been killed just from a thrown pitch:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517877,00.html

And/or less than that.

Originally Posted by Dragoonster

...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...
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.

Have to agree 100%. This notion that an American Legion baseball player (BTW, a level that's at least at high school level baseball) has 'no true idea' of the dangers of baseball is not just absurd, but patently stupid.

Originally Posted by fuelair

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

Not true at all. See a couple paragraphs above.

Originally Posted by drkitten

On the other hand, everyone here is pointing out that, yes, aluminium bats do hit harder (and are therefore more dangerous) than wooden ones.

I don't see how "common sense" is supposed to tell me which bats are particularly dangerous.

Spoken as a true ignorant lawyer, which I don't think you are. Are you? "Common sense" should tell you BOTH are 'potentially' dangerous. Actually, the 'common sense' part kinda takes place with the entire notion of hitting a hard thrown, hard surfaced ball, with a hard surfaced device with the intention of said ball being put into play/motion as hard hit and well placed as is humanly possible - and all of it takes place in a field with 9 opposing players not only AT RISK of bearing the brunt of such ball/bat actions, but actually HOPING TO 'make a play' on such so as to deny you safe passage around the bases they are in fact protecting. If all those particular actions don't infer some type of 'danger' is not only possible, but INEVITABLE, then I'm not sure what else to say.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not at all. The whole point of "acceptable risk" is that one can knowingly "accept" almost any degree of risk as long as that risk is made clear to the person using it.

The nature of the game itself has incalculable risk, and all eventualities cannot (and need not) be 'mitigated' simply because of the potential that something 'tragic' COULD happen. I'm sure you're aware, it's not a new sport. The dangers of it have long been exposed and this particular instance wasn't anywhere near the 'freakish' scale except possibly for the fact he died. One being hit by a (humanly) batted ball is the 'acceptable risk' a baseball player takes. The minutiae of how an aluminum bat hits a ball 0.02569% better than a wooden one, for instance, shouldn't be (even though it was in this case) a vehicle for the 'cause of action' of a so-called wrongful death. Especially considering both types of bats have been used ubiquitously in baseball (except professional) for 40+ years. See the 'accident' post above.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Delegation of supervisory authority. The manufacturer needs to make sure that the buyer (in this case, presumably the league) is aware of the relevant risks. The league needs to make sure that the players [and in this case, their parents as well, since the players are minors] are aware of the relevant risks.

Again, ignorant-lawyer-speak. The 'relevant risks' are already KNOWN. Precise mathematical computations and comparisons are unnecessary when the 'real world' (the game, the rules, the players, the coaches, the parents et al - in this case) couldn't possibly detect the minute differences between the two different forms anyway. Just because an aluminum bat could potentially hit a baseball a little bit harder (and the reality is it's only a LITTLE BIT) in 'laboratory testing' doesn't require nor infer that it actually does in real world use. Or more precisely, that it does to any degree of noticeable difference. A baseball player who's 6'-9 and weighs 300 pounds could potentially crush a pitched ball to Madagascar too, but nothing in the rules of the universe, or baseball, says that he has to or that he will.

Originally Posted by drkitten

There's lots of precedent detailing what's expected in the case of inherently risky activities. When you rent a pair of skis, you'll be handed a sheet telling you in detail that skiing is inherently risk and detailing some of the activities you are expected to take in order to ski safely. If someone developed a new high-speed ski "for experts only" and marketed it as such, it wouldn't be there problem if a novice knowingly rented a pair of skis that were too much for him/her. But if the novice can't tell the difference between high-performance skis and "normal" skis, there would be a problem.

As has been pointed out already, this wasn't a 10 year old 'Little Leaguer' still 'learning the ropes'. An 18 year old American Legion player surely knows more (even a lot more) of the 'risks' than said innocent 10 year old. And as a pitcher even more so (i.e. arm problems etc.). Playing baseball for, say, 6-8 years and then finding oneself on an A.L. team is hardly a righteous (or HONEST) stand to claim any genuine ignorance of the 'risks'.

Originally Posted by JenseitsDavon

Are these people serious? The *point* of the game is to hit a small, hard object with a long, hard object to make it go as far as possible. And hey, if you put your head in front of it, bad things happen. It's like having someone on a shotgun range waiting to catch the missed pigeons. Sooner or later, somebody's gonna get hurt. Would they prefer the bats be made from wet noodles?

Excellent. I wish I was able to be so succinct.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er,... no.
Just because a sport is inherently dangerous is not licence to make it more dangerous than necessary. Skiing is inherently dangerous, but a manufacturer who made skis out of plate glass wouldn't be able to say "hey, sooner or later someone's gonna get hurt" if the skis broke and cut someone. Because while the risk of falling down is inherent to skiing, the risk of your skis shattering into razor sharp glass shards is not.

<coughignorantlawyerspeakagaincough> 'More dangerous' than...what exactly? You're trying to imply wood bats = not dangerous, aluminum bats = dangerous. You're arguing fractions of percentages and very minute numbers. In this entire instance regarding the game of baseball, I find it impossible to reconcile how one slightly-more potentially dangerous device is totally to blame yet the other only-slightly-less potentially dangerous device is not. In reality, yes 3-5 MPH can make a difference in strikeouts, but not in the death rate.

Hypothetical: What if laboratory testing proved that, yes aluminum bats are absolutely 'more dangerous' than wood bats, BUT ONLY WHEN they are used to their 'full potential' by an unlimited horsepower swinging machine, for instance, BUT, said 'full potential' is not actually achievable by any human means as they are physically incapable of exerting the required amount of torque blah blah. Thus, the potential to be 'more dangerous' is in theory there, but the actuality of it is an impossibility for humans on a baseball field. Is there an actual (real world) increase in liability there?

Originally Posted by casebro

The bat case was won because the "victim" was a cute young child.
Oh, he might have been an ugly teenager, but I'll bet you he was presented to the jury as a "innocent young child, struck down while innocently playing America's National Past time".
Parents of young child wins, EVIL TRAITOROUS CORPORATION loses.
Nothing to do with liability, everything to do with emotions.

And that's the real truth. The obvious impossibility of testing exactly what occurred on that day in that instance at that time proves the jury was swayed more by emotion than by science.

IMHO, the reason such an improbable and insane (to me and many) verdict was had relates more to geography than anything else. Helena, Montana, while I'm sure is civilized enough to have been playing baseball for many years, is not Southern California, for instance. So. Ca. is a baseball mecca. A literal haven for baseball players of all ages and orders and definitely a place far more suitable for major league scouts to seek players than, say, well, Helena, Montana. It's also a place with a 'real understanding' of what baseball is and how it all works. And while a player dying on the field of play in So. Ca. might be just as tragic and his parents just as bereaved, my bet is they would also 'understand' that the minuscule differences in the (potential) physics between aluminum bats and wooden bats is not nor could be an actual 'cause of death'. Their 18 year old son would have simply, albeit tragically, died playing a game he probably loved playing. Justice system ordered remuneration be damned.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

And more for banning metal bats:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...n/basebal2.pdf

This has been an ongoing fight in the industry. Never heard of it before now.

So why would Louisville Slugger be part of conspiracy to cover up the dangers of aluminum bats? They are already a top seller of wooden bats. If aluminum bats are banned, people would just buy a wooden Louisville Slugger baseball bat instead of an aluminum Louisville Slugger baseball bat. Plus it might run out some of the competition from aluminum bat companies. And if wooden bats don’t last as long, they would sell more bats.

And the other link you posted to “USA Baseball, the National Governing Body (NGB) for the sport of baseball as designated by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978” says:

Quote:

Since 2003, all bats are required to meet the “Bat Exit Speed Ratio” (BESR) performance limitation, which ensures that aluminum bats do not hit the ball any harder than the best wood bats.

From the current Louisville Slugger website about choosing a bat:

Quote:

Unless you’re in the pros or playing in a wood-bat league, we’ll assume that you’ll be swinging aluminum. Here are a few tips to keep in mind when making your selection:

League requirements: Virtually all leagues have their own bat requirements and restrictions. For example, high school and college requirements call for BESR-certified bats. To avoid costly surprises, make sure you know all league requirements before you go bat shopping.

In this case, was the batter using a juiced up aluminum bat that doesn’t conform to these rules? If not, then how could the aluminum bat that was actually used be more dangerous?

You can read Louisville Slugger’s statement here: http://www.slugger.com/press/09-verd...statement.html

What would the warning label look like?

WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS
LOUISVILLE SLUGGER ALUMINUM BASEBALL BAT
MAKES THE BALL FLY HARDER, FASTER, AND FURTHER THAN ANY WOOD BAT

THIS MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR OPPONENTS!

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

What would the warning label look like?

WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS
LOUISVILLE SLUGGER ALUMINUM BASEBALL BAT
MAKES THE BALL FLY HARDER, FASTER, AND FURTHER THAN ANY WOOD BAT

THIS MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR OPPONENTS!

I am not sure if anyone here actually is blaming the bat company. Again, I blame the coordinators. They could have a warning on the sign up sheet that parents are given before the child could play. Warning: We feel that the safety of your children is not as important as getting more players in the league. For that reason we are using aluminum bats instead of those made of wood, so your child is in danger if he is the pitcher.