Here's a group of people who should probably not be allowed to vote at the very least.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356596,00.html

Quote :

"WAYNE, N.J. — The family of a boy who suffered brain damage after he was struck by a line drive off an aluminum baseball bat sued the bat's maker and others on Monday, saying they should have known it was dangerous. The family of Steven Domalewski, who was 12 when he was struck by the ball in 2006, filed the lawsuit in state Superior Court. It names Hillerich & Bradsby Co., maker of the 31-inch, 19-ounce Louisville Slugger TPX Platinum bat used when Steven was hit. The lawsuit also names Little League Baseball and Sports Authority, which sold the bat. It claims the defendants knew, or should have known, that the bat was dangerous for children to use, according to the family's attorney, Ernest Fronzuto. "People who have children in youth sports are excited about the lawsuit from a public policy standpoint because they hope it can make the sport safer," Fronzuto said after filing the suit Monday morning. "There are also those who are skeptical of the lawsuit and don't see the connection between Steven's injury and the aluminum bat." Little League denies any wrongdoing, as does the bat manufacturer. Sports Authority has not responded to several telephone messages seeking comment. RelatedStories Parents to Sue Maker of Metal Baseball Bats Over Son's Injury Steven was pitching in a Police Athletic League game when he was hit just above the heart by a line drive. His heart stopped beating and his brain was deprived of oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes, according to his doctors. Although he was not playing in a Little League game, the organization is being sued because it gave its seal of approval to the bat, certifying it as safe for use by children, Fronzuto said. "

5/19/2008 3:33:47 PM

i was the one that threw the bat. swear to god.

5/19/2008 3:35:22 PM

link to Sports Talk thread \message_topic.aspx?topic=526804

5/19/2008 3:41:35 PM

^'ppreciate it

5/19/2008 4:01:50 PM

Kids can be injured playing sports?

5/19/2008 4:04:42 PM

I am 100% sure the kid's parents signed a waiver at the beginning of the season.

5/19/2008 4:08:28 PM

Suing the Little League Baseball might be reasonable, as they should be responsible for field safety. However, Louisville Slugger and Sports Authority is simply too much.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 6:24:12 PM

^did you see this part though?

Quote :

"Although he was not playing in a Little League game, the organization is being sued because it gave its seal of approval to the bat, certifying it as safe for use by children"

5/19/2008 6:28:00 PM

^^ There's a reasonable risk of bodily harm involved in baseball. Getting hit with a ball is part of that.

5/19/2008 6:48:48 PM

FUCKING.

STUPID.

5/19/2008 7:06:00 PM

There is reasonable assumption of risk, but the heart stopping is not a reasonable risk.

5/19/2008 7:07:10 PM

maybe he already had heart problems, who knows

whats the solution nutsmackr? mandatory padding? switch all the equipment to whiffle ball equipment?

5/19/2008 7:10:24 PM

^^ holy Jesus fucking Christ, I didn't even think that you would find this lawsuit to be anything other than a ridiculous, irresponsible abuse of the court system. guess i was wrong.

5/19/2008 7:46:32 PM

The family could have purchased a chest plate:

5/19/2008 7:52:20 PM

The lawsuit is bullshit, but that does not change what I said earlier.

5/19/2008 8:07:28 PM

the assumption of risk is that you could get hit in the chest with a ball, if you assume that risk; you then assume all possibly outcomes of that risk.

when I go skydiving, I assume the risk of my parachute not opening, all potential outcomes of my parachute not opening (ie; dying)

5/19/2008 8:14:13 PM

Different situations.

5/19/2008 8:15:06 PM

john edwards will get him money

5/19/2008 8:16:06 PM

so whats the solution nutsmackr

5/19/2008 8:16:17 PM

no shit they are different situations; however, you did not rebutt my original arguement that:

Quote :

"the assumption of risk is that you could get hit in the chest with a ball, if you assume that risk; you then assume all possibly outcomes of that risk."

5/19/2008 8:18:12 PM

I already said the lawsuit is bullshit.

What a fucking stupid question.

Also, even with the assumption of risk, that does not prevent an injured party from seeking civil redress.

A lot of organizations make an individual/guardian sign a waiver form, however, the organization can still be found to be negligent. The assumption of risk waiver assumes that the dangers have been mitigated to the best of the organization's, or business' ability.

If for instance, with the bat, it is found that there is a history of danger associated with it, meaning the ball leaving the bat at a higher than reasonable velocity, and the bat maker knew about it then it can be held liable.

sky diving and baseball are different. Sky diving has both the reasonable assumption that chute could fail and the reasonable assumption that one can die in the process.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 8:19:34 PM

so whats the solution

5/19/2008 8:21:47 PM

What's your solution? What is your grand solution to this problem? Do you realize how stupid that question is?

5/19/2008 8:23:05 PM

my solution is "oh well, sucks for the kid, but things like this happen in very rare circumstances"

but i'm not the one who thinks the bat manufacturer should be liable for a kid's death because he got a bad trajectory from a pitch

what could Little League or anybody else do to make the sport safe enough for you since you're the one who seems to think the lawsuit holds weight

what safety changes or equipment changes should be made in your opinion to make the sport safe enough for "reasonable risk"?

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 8:24:30 PM

Quote :

"I already said the lawsuit is bullshit."

The only organization that could possibly be at risk in this matter is the Police Baseball League and the bat manufacturer (that assumes they had prior knowledge of an unsafe product).

one thing we'll probably see in the future is a requirement by LL, and other childhood baseball organizations is that they wear a product like this when pitching



[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 8:28:49 PM

THis is bullshit. I dont blame the parents, they are hurt and going through the grieving process. This is one of the steps towards acceptance. I blame the lawyer. That SOB is supposed to be a professional.

When I got my knee blown out playing bball. I had some friends that said to sue over the injury and foul. I even got a call from the school's lawyer. Shit, I made the decision to play and I took the consequences. If I didnt want to risk an injury I could have watched the game.

5/19/2008 8:37:16 PM

Quote :

"I blame the lawyer. That SOB is supposed to be a professional. "

Yeah, a professional piece of shit. That's the case an inordinate % of the time in that profession, from what I've seen.

5/19/2008 9:00:40 PM

A friend of mine who is a lawyer told me that a lot of the wildly ridiculous lawsuits we hear about in the news end up being thrown out as frivolous without an actual trial, but we never hear about the judge throwing it out since that isn't really newsworthy. I'm assuming this is one of them.



On another note, I went into shock after getting hit in the solar plexus with a soccer ball in a game when I was a kid. Something like this might have actually helped. It was crazy. I got weak and cold, my lips turned blue, my blood pressure dropped to almost nothing, and I really felt like I was dying. At first they thought I had a busted spleen. By the time they got me to the hospital I felt almost fine. It was very awkward when the doctor asked was was wrong and I was like "nothing now."

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : l]

5/19/2008 9:01:35 PM

Quote :

"so whats the solution"

Two words:

Loser Pays.

5/19/2008 9:18:11 PM

You know, if you go back in time a few hundred years, the chances of a kid making it to 18 were something like 1 in 3. Now that rate is so low parents think that they're justified in flying off the handle and trying to blame someone when their kid dies in a freak accident.

I'm not going so far as to call it an acceptable loss, but you get the idea.

5/19/2008 11:15:09 PM

I'm failing to see how this is the bat's fault, and by extension why the bat-maker is being sued. They might as well sue the ball-manufacturer while they're at it! Or the dude who happened to hit the ball! IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAULT THAT SHIT HAPPENS, EVEN THOUGH MY DUMBASS AGREED TO LET MY LITTLE BASTARD ACCEPT THE RISK!

5/19/2008 11:26:41 PM

There's a chance they're not trying to get rich or be greedy.

I mean, if your kid gets hurt badly, needs elaborate care, and you and your insurance can't cover it...sometimes your best choice is to sue.

I wouldn't be above it if my kid needed things I couldn't provide.

5/19/2008 11:53:27 PM

^ so basically what you're saying is that if you can't pay for medical care for your kid then you should steal money from someone else to cover the expenses?

5/20/2008 12:35:17 AM

^ It's not stealing if the court decides in your favor.

And besides, that's what car insurance is anyway. You're required to have it, and if you never use it (and most people don't use anywhere near what they pay in), other people benefit.

5/20/2008 12:54:35 AM

1) Calculate the speed of a ball leaving the bat required to hit a home run on a Little League field.

2) Observe that this speed is independent of the kind of bat used.

3) Assume this to still be the approximate speed of the ball as it crosses the pitcher's mound. This is reasonable for our purposes, since a ball could certainly be hit faster if the home run was to travel significantly beyond the fences.

4) Calculate time it takes the ball to travel at said speed from the bat to the pitcher's mound. Hint: this is a very small amount of time.

5) Ask an expert if it can be reasonably assumed that a 12-year-old pitcher should always have the reflexes required to react to a line drive hit at him at said speed and successfully dodge it. Hint: expert will say no.

6) Ask a doctor if getting hit by a ball at that speed in the heart might make a 12-year-old's heart stop. Hint: doctor will say yes.

7) Conclude that since home runs are not an unexpected outcome in baseball, getting injured in the way this kid got injured is not an unreasonable risk.

8) Counter-sue for attorney's fees for 1-7).

5/20/2008 2:59:43 AM

bat technology has been a subject of controversy for many years in everything from little league to college. there's a lot of bats that have been outlawed by various organizations because of the dangers they pose to players. it's gotten ridiculous, and the bat manufacturers continue to push the limit knowing they're selling something that could be lethal, and some organizations are still allowing whatever.

normally, i would agree that this is a ridiculous suit. however, knowing the history of how companies have made this stuff and ignored requests to keep the technology at a sane level i don't think it's a bad move. an ideal outcome in my opinion would be some limitations set on the use of certain bats.

that said, for any blame to be placed they need to prove that the velocity of the hit expected an unreasonable reaction from the kid. the ability of the hitter and pitcher should come into play as well.

edit: i just noticed the bat stats, 31 inches 19 ounces... that's ridiculous. even a 12 year old can develop some serious bat speed with that and have a very healthy sized sweet spot. combined with a high tech modern alloy, it's excessive imo.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 4:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2008 4:05:12 AM

31-19 is about the same thing I used as a kid playing little league 16 years ago.

5/20/2008 4:20:21 AM

I used a 31 25 in little league at that age.

5/20/2008 8:00:39 AM

31" at 12 years old?

Whatever. That kids was just trying to impress his teammates.

5/20/2008 8:09:39 AM

Quote :

"1) Calculate the speed of a ball leaving the bat required to hit a home run on a Little League field. 2) Observe that this speed is independent of the kind of bat used. 3) Assume this to still be the approximate speed of the ball as it crosses the pitcher's mound. This is reasonable for our purposes, since a ball could certainly be hit faster if the home run was to travel significantly beyond the fences. 4) Calculate time it takes the ball to travel at said speed from the bat to the pitcher's mound. Hint: this is a very small amount of time. 5) Ask an expert if it can be reasonably assumed that a 12-year-old pitcher should always have the reflexes required to react to a line drive hit at him at said speed and successfully dodge it. Hint: expert will say no. 6) Ask a doctor if getting hit by a ball at that speed in the heart might make a 12-year-old's heart stop. Hint: doctor will say yes. 7) Conclude that since home runs are not an unexpected outcome in baseball, getting injured in the way this kid got injured is not an unreasonable risk. 8) Counter-sue for attorney's fees for 1-7). 8) Move for dismissal with prejudice and negotiate for attorney's fees in post trial motions. "

5/20/2008 8:09:55 AM

I actually don't remember what I used at that age.

5/20/2008 8:50:00 AM

THis kid is brain damaged, so disabled. He should qualify for medicare/medicaid.

As for this being a frivolous the only solution I can see if that you have to go after the professionals or the lawyers. Make them cover the court costs as well if the judge declares it a frivolous case.. They should know better. Maybe if there was a financial consequence then they might cut down on some of this BS.

However, since our govt if filled with lawyers, dont expect ANY law reform soon.

5/20/2008 9:04:37 AM

Quote :

"There's a chance they're not trying to get rich or be greedy. I mean, if your kid gets hurt badly, needs elaborate care, and you and your insurance can't cover it...sometimes your best choice is to sue. I wouldn't be above it if my kid needed things I couldn't provide."

and fuck anyone who pulls out another gotdam Ayn Rand book.

cause i'll rip your heart out and sell it to China if it saves my child's life.

5/20/2008 2:57:41 PM

Quote :

" 2) Observe that this speed is independent of the kind of bat used."

furthermore, that's some ignorant bullshit there. first you assume that a kid cant dodge a normal line drive to the pitchers mound... that a ball being hit off an aluminum bat is anywhere near the "minimum home run speed" ... that a line drive to the pitchers mound at perhaps 10x that velocity on a non-home run trajectory is an appropriate comparision...

oh, hey, do you suppose there's a reason why aluminum bats aren't allowed in minor or major league baseball?

look, im not saying that the parents have a solid case or should necessarily win. but they have every right to bring the case. its not frivolous.

all you people hating on lawyers need to realize this country is based on the foundation of the Rule of Law and survives by the continued interpretation and application of laws.

if you hate America so much, how about you just GTFO and move to some commie totalitarian regime.






[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 3:06:02 PM

Quote :

"ook, im not saying that the parents have a solid case or should necessarily win. but they have every right to bring the case. its not frivolous."

I think we have different definitions of frivolous.

You just said their case isn't solid and they probably shouldn't win.

How does such a case not constitute frivolity?

5/20/2008 3:33:43 PM

Quote :

"furthermore, that's some ignorant bullshit there. first you assume that a kid cant dodge a normal line drive to the pitchers mound... that a ball being hit off an aluminum bat is anywhere near the "minimum home run speed" ... that a line drive to the pitchers mound at perhaps 10x that velocity on a non-home run trajectory is an appropriate comparision... oh, hey, do you suppose there's a reason why aluminum bats aren't allowed in minor or major league baseball? look, im not saying that the parents have a solid case or should necessarily win. but they have every right to bring the case. its not frivolous. all you people hating on lawyers need to realize this country is based on the foundation of the Rule of Law and survives by the continued interpretation and application of laws. if you hate America so much, how about you just GTFO and move to some commie totalitarian regime."

It IS a frivolous lawsuit.

Even IF the bat imparts "excessive" speed to the ball, as bats were designed to do, it doesn't matter. A reasonable person knows that is what bats do, and it's not like this was a secret. The games were played in public where the 'dangerous conditions' are open for everyone to see. If you object, pull your kid out. Simple as that.

NO danger is 'excessive,' and no bat-maker should be liable, when the parents knowingly consent. Period. If they had bats that hit the ball twice as hard as normal metal bats, it should not matter. A reasonable person would be aware of that, and if you're aware and consent - tough luck if something happens.

5/20/2008 4:13:39 PM

^good post.

Joe im surprised by your position.

5/20/2008 4:45:39 PM

Quote :

"JoeSchmoe: "im not saying that the parents have a solid case or should necessarily win.""

              DOES NOT EQUAL

Quote :

"Boone: "You just said their case isn't solid and they probably shouldn't win""

jesuschristalready, Boone, didn't you have to take some sort of logic class, somewhere at some point in time?

Do I have to be a Member of the Jury or a Friend of the Court -- or otherwise understand every last bit of case-specific legal minutae -- in order to make a general observation around here?

Okay here, let me make a declarative statement that you can put in a frame and hang on the wall:

Quote :

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"

hows that? is that okay? can i still say crazy shit like that?






[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 4:50:13 PM

So by your rationale, there's no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit.

Anything that can be brought to court, ought to be brought to court?

5/20/2008 4:59:36 PM

Oh, yea, and i said that too. ... really, dude... i mean... wow.

okay, ill play your game: i agree with someone earlier (eyedrb?) who said if a case is truly frivolous, the plaintiff should be held responsible for costs.

but who are you, or anyone else, to deny these people their Seventh Amendment right?

and did you get all your facts on this case from the hyperbolic foxnews.com article? No? Well, tell us please, what other inside information do you have concerning the legal details of this case. are you holding counsel for the defense? or having sex with the foreman of the jury, perchance?







[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 5:03:14 PM