There are inherent risks to any sport and even…gasp life. People get injured, people die, shit happens. Unless it was a case of gross negligence, no, 99% of the time there is no reason to sue. This is not part of that 1%. You can get killed playing baseball, driving to work, walking down a set of stairs. That’s life, don’t like it? Live in a bubble.
Oh I absolutely agree. Trust me, I didn’t grow up in the US. lol.
I’m (and also Avatar from what I understand) just saying that when there is a reason to go after a company for a true case of negligence, there is no real way of getting retribution. However, as a society we’ve decided that money is the next best thing.
Or how about these idiots sueing quit being fucking morons and learn some fucking common sense.
Great link. I can see why there’s resistance from the bar here.
MPD, don’t talk like you know something when you don’t. I wrapped “whole” in quotes for a reason. In most cases a financial judgment or settlement is not going to make anyone whole, but there should be an attempt at justice.
In the case of product liability, who do you think is going to protect consumers from negligent or even predatory companies? The government? I’m not going to get into an internet battle with a lay person over the philosophical ramifications of tort law and reform, but I will recommend you read a bit on the subject instead of coming into a debate with a mass-media driven understanding of the issues.
If you’re driving in your car and someone strikes you head-on, your injured due to a design fault in your vehicle that was known to the manufacturer (or should have been known), would you just say “shit happens, that’s life”?
If anyone has ever served on a jury or been in a courtroom during a negligence case you will see that there are very specific statutory standards. There are also a variety of defenses such as contributory/comparative negligence, assumption of risk, unforeseeable intervention, etc. Just because a plaintiff says they’re injured doesn’t mean an automatic judgment.
Another point on this subject is that it’s not the law that is awarding these large controversial judgments. These are juries of regular people who feel that somebody has been wronged and someone else should be held accountable for that wrong. If you have a problem with that take it up with your friends and family not those people in the courtroom who are simply living out their vocation.
^ Spoken like a true lawyer. Let me toss in some fear, throw in some big words, and hopefully you’ll forget about the real facts of the case. You know, the fact that a baseball bat manufacturer who’s bat did not fail in any way is being told to pay because a kid playing baseball in high school got killed while using a product as it was designed to be used.
From a legal standpoint I can see suing the school because maybe they shouldn’t have been using aluminum bats, but definitely not the bat manufacturer. (and no, personally I don’t think the school should be liable either, but legally I can see grounds under our broken justice system).
Avatar, you act like the US trial lawyers association is so honorable and just group protecting us from the big bad world. If that’s the case why then do they fight loser pays systems that are in use throughout the modern world?
PS… I was pre-law, and changed majors when I realized just how corrupt our system is and knew I wouldn’t be able to live with myself being a part of it. I wouldn’t buy into the brain washing they give you about, “we’re only suing because it makes the world a better place and protects people”. Based on most of your responses it seems you ate that part up.
I don’t know all the facts of the aluminum baseball bat case, but here are some points to consider:
-
children are a protected class
-
the manufacturer should have known that a ball will come off an Al bat faster than a traditional wooden bat. From there a simple sticker warning the consumer of this may have absolved the manufacturer of liability.
-
sure, the bat didn’t fail, but the company who made the bat failed in informing it’s consumers that the bat posed a significantly greater hazard than a wooden bat.
I don’t have a fully-formed opinion on the US trial lawyers assoc., but as far as the loser-pays system here is the argument against:
If I find I have a claim against a large corporation that maybe is a novel issue to the court system, how am I ever supposed to find an attorney to prepare and work my case. Most corporations have far more resources and money than an individual for fighting legal battles. Instituting a statutory requirement for the bringer of a suit to pay for the costs of the case may be a hindrance to the interest of justice. Besides, there are already fee shifting rewards in certain types of cases.
There are also good reasons why we should move to an “english” system that you’re already aware of. I don’t really have a strong opinion on this. I don’t practice yet and don’t plan on getting into civil liability stuff. It’s not my thing.
I really want to know the DIFFERENCE between and aluminum bat and a wooden bat as far as the amount of energy imparted.
I’ve got one question for you lawyerboy. If the legal system is so honorable and only out to protect us simple common-folk from the evil corporations, then why does everyone file an appeal when they lose a case? I mean if its honorable, then clearly the original ruling was correct, why do you have to yell shenanigans that you didn’t get your way???
Actually don’t answer this because quite frankly I could give a shit what you have to say.
LOL
I guess this answers my question, from a somewhat reliable survey… I can’t see MAX 10mph making a difference in killing someone vs NOT killing them…
Clearly engineers and people with common sense have no place on juries Newman.
I don’t think the fact that the boy was killed is what is important here. It’s that the players were unaware of the enhanced risk, the company failed to make them aware, and therefore the players were unprepared for the consequences that followed.
I’m sure someone may also be killed by getting hit with a ball batted from a wooden bat.
Don’t focus on just the fact that using the bat resulted in death.
Assuming instantaneous acceleration, the difference between the ball getting to the mound wood vs Al are:
X (highschool)=60.5 feet
Vw=98.6mph=144.6 foot/second
Vm=108mph=158.4 foot/second
Assuming no acceleration:
T=V/X
Tw= 2.39s
Tm = 2.61s
IDK about you, but to me, those figures don’t help the plaintiff’s case in MY eyes.
From wiki:
Mean reaction time for young adults is approximately 215 milliseconds to detect visual stimulus
so… the DIFFERENCE in times from one matl to the other is ONLY the human reaction time…
Maybe a medical doctor can shed some light as to whether or not 10mph means dead or alive…
The point I’m trying to argue is whether the risk is “enhanced” sufficiently to place blame. Humidity and air density can also affect how far (fast) a baseball is hit… but to what degree?
I realize that you can’t sue “mother nature”.
I’m sure this is what the meat of the trial attempted to uncover…
I SUPPOSE that a 10% increase in speed is a sufficient amount, however, what could the bat maker have done? I’ve seen many bats that are so abused that all text is gone, at which point the warning text would have been illegible.
I should actually show this case to my cousin, maybe he can sue Louisville too. He was hit in the head as the pitcher under the exact same circumstances. Only he didn’t die, only suffered a concussion. Hell, it was 20 years ago, but they had aluminum bats then, lawyers love digging up shit from the past to take to court as long as there’s money to be made for themselves, I mean, for their client who suffered horribly due to “negligence”…
There are time limitations.
What is wrong with making money? A lot of work goes into trying a case and someone has to lose. It’s not always one side or the other, either.
“Grrrr, I don’t agree with you so I don’t like you personally and will call you names on the internet!”
Newman, I’m sure there were multiple “expert” witnesses explaining all of this during the trial (on both sides).
you can’t be serious. :picard:
What’s your point? :picard:
If you’re referring to me, I didn’t call you names, unless you’re referring to lawyerboy, which I suppose is technically incorrect, it should be future lawyerboy (I’m assuming you’re male because this is NYSpeed). And I guess its not really your fault, you’re just a product of your education system, that (in my opinion) happens to be the fucked up legal system. I guess its my fault too that I think too analytically, I guess I should blame UB’s engineering department on that one. BTW, do you think I can sue them? 