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.

 

[tesscaline]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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

Or carbohydrates?

 

[drkitten]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.