Jury awards $850,000 to family of kid killed during baseball game - Page 2

Giygas_84 · 10-30-2009, 09:47 PM

Who'da thunk swinging a club at a hard ball with someone 60ft away from you could potentially be dangerous?? The bat company is EVIL I tells ya!

Personal responsibility is dead and may never come back.

**brackis1** · 10-30-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by libertarian4321

Bottom line: Lawyers SUCK!

Bottom line: jurors are a microcosm of a retard-laden society.

Lawyers don't suck for the most part. they actually have ethics standards.

possenti · 10-30-2009, 09:51 PM

The story seems to emphasize it was an aluminum bat. I'm decent at basic physics, but I don't think they transmit significantly more force onto the ball than a wooden bat, do they?

**brackis1** · 10-30-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Ager

Please let this go to appeal and get a sane judge reverse this. Sorry your kid died but seriously it is an inherent risk in baseball. You can't fault a company when they did nothing wrong. Fail of a jury

Aren't you in law school?

If the company doesn't have warnings, they are exposing themselves to risk here.
It doesn't sound fair to plebians, but it's how shit works.

Giygas_84 · 10-30-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brackis1

Aren't you in law school?

If the company doesn't have warnings, they are exposing themselves to risk here.
It doesn't sound fair to plebians, but it's how shit works.

WARNING: Do not use product for its intented use because it might cause injury and/or death.

Yes, that is unfortunately the way it works, but the point of people arguing agaisnt it is that the system needs to change. We can't have warnings on every single potentially dangerous product now can we?

BP3 · 10-30-2009, 10:02 PM

All I want to know is why didn't they sue the baseball manufacturer?

.

Plutoburn · 10-30-2009, 10:02 PM

This doesn't mean anything...

The company can file for appeal even if the judge does not reverse it. It will be years before the family actually see a dime even if ultimately the decision goes their way.

Tim Ager · 10-30-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brackis1

Aren't you in law school?

If the company doesn't have warnings, they are exposing themselves to risk here.
It doesn't sound fair to plebians, but it's how shit works.

I haven't covered products liability. But what little I had of it in my business law class in undergrad I thought if there was some known inherently dangerous part to your product you didn't have to warn about it. Like hitting baseballs with a bat could cause serious injury. Or not catching a ball coming at you with the glove can cause serious injury lol. I emailed one of my professors from undergrad who got his law degree from Marquette to ask his opinion. If he gets back to me soon I'll post what he says.

**brackis1** · 10-30-2009, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Ager

I haven't covered products liability. But what little I had of it in my business law class in undergrad I thought if there was some known inherently dangerous part to your product you didn't have to warn about it. Like hitting baseballs with a bat could cause serious injury. Or not catching a ball coming at you with the glove can cause serious injury lol. I emailed one of my professors from undergrad who got his law degree from Marquette to ask his opinion. If he gets back to me soon I'll post what he says.

Then the case may hinge on whether it should be assumed that a ball struck with a bat can cause actual death to a healthy person, as opposed to injury.

Tim Ager · 10-30-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brackis1

Then the case may hinge on whether it should be assumed that a ball struck with a bat can cause actual death to a healthy person, as opposed to injury.

Right but still lost wages of $750,000 doesn't seem reasonable at all to me.