PDA

View Full Version : Family wins lawsuit against Louisville Slugger....what's your take on this?



kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 12:33 PM
Jury Awards $850,000 In Louisville Slugger Case

By Ben Jackey/WLKY



LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A Montana jury took a swing at the makers of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat.

The panel ruled in favor of a family who sued the company for not warning users about the dangers of using aluminum bats.

The verdict means Hillerich and Bradsby is on the hook for $850,000. The company said it's not sure what it means beyond that because the jury also decided there was nothing wrong with the product.

“We think that most players understand the risk that they're taking when they step onto the field,” said Hillerich and Bradsby spokesman Rick Redman.

In 2003, 18-year-old Brandon Patch died after being hit in the head by a ball he threw to a batter. That batter was using an aluminum Louisville Slugger.

Patch family attorneys argued the manufacturer did not provide proper warning about the dangers of using aluminum bats.

A jury awarded the family a total of $850,000, including $750,000 in lost wages.

“We came into this not knowing. We were just hoping to prevail for Brandon. This is for Brandon and for the other kids on the field,” said his mother Deb Patch.

“I think we're all kind of wondering if this is even an indictment of the entire game of baseball,” said Redman.

Redman pointed to the fact that the jury did not find the product to be defective. He doesn't know if the company will now have to put special labels on metal bats, but he fears it could change sport as we know it.

“It's really a statement on the society that we live in today that we have to have a warning label on everything and that you just wonder if we're heading down that path more and more of being a nanny state,” said Redman.

Redman said Hillerich and Bradsby is considering whether to appeal the decision.

There is still an outstanding case in New Jersey against the company involving a teen paralyzed by a line drive that came off an aluminum Louisville Slugger.

Maroon87
10-30-2009, 12:48 PM
I'm not a fan of aluminum bats but come on...the player and the family should be well aware of the inherent risks involved.

I just wonder why it is that everytime an accident like this happens someone has to get sued.:hand:

STANG RED
10-30-2009, 12:55 PM
In the real world sometimes bad things happen to good people. Its just a part of life. The lawsuit was BS, and so was the verdict.

BaTmAn24
10-30-2009, 12:55 PM
This is flat out ridiculous. You are playing in a sport where a ball can travel over 100 mph and at any given moment can strike you and injure you. How on earth is it the bat's fault? If you can blame the bat then could you claim the hitter was the murder and the bat was his weapon? :thinking:

rangerjoe33
10-30-2009, 01:01 PM
Yeah, at 18 years old you would think he knew the risks. Lost wages? For his parents or for him? Was he a potential draft choice/or a drafted player already with a contract? If so they certainly knew the risk, either way completely wrong decision by the system.

NastySlot
10-30-2009, 01:03 PM
then sue the league, sue the coach, sue the ball maker and glove maker.

coachc45
10-30-2009, 01:06 PM
They shouldn't sue Louisville slugger! They should sue the people who made the pitching rubber for not having a warning label that says if you stand on it you might get hit in the head with a baseball!!!


STUPID PEOPLE!!!!

44INAROW
10-30-2009, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by BaTmAn24
This is flat out ridiculous. You are playing in a sport where a ball can travel over 100 mph and at any given moment can strike you and injure you. How on earth is it the bat's fault? If you can blame the bat then could you claim the hitter was the murder and the bat was his weapon? :thinking:
I agree.........

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-30-2009, 01:18 PM
It is apparent that many of you are clueless on the motives for litigation. This family only sued for $850,000 and $750,000 was accounted for in lost wages....The family wanted to change the policy itself and try to promote a safer playing environment for the players so that other families don't have to suffer the same grief and hardship that they endured by losing their son. If this were greed-based tort, then they would have asked for a lot more money.

Anyone ever seen the warning labels on helmets for football? Common sense tells everyone that there are inherent risks associated with playing the game, but the warning label is there to educate people and make sure everyone is well aware of that risk.

jason
10-30-2009, 01:22 PM
how about these two options:

kid 1 throws ball towards player with bat, player hits ball that kid 1 threw and ball strikes kid 1 - death by accidental suicide....



kid 1 throws ball towards player with bat, in an act of self defense, player with bat strikes ball back at kid 1 and ball strikes kid 1 - kid 1 still dies and no charges brought on batter due to self defense laws...

sTx
10-30-2009, 01:23 PM
I still think its crap that louisville slugger had to pay

kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 01:23 PM
its ridiculous....its a loophole...

If a family member of mine is struck by a vehicle and killed can I sue the vehicle manufacturer for not putting a warning label on the car that says this vehicle can kill if a pedestrian walks in front of it while its in motion?

baseballcoach13
10-30-2009, 01:25 PM
If you need a warning label on a helmet to warn you of the danger than you a huge DA and should not be allowed to play. Idiots like this are the reason you cant buy anything that doesn't have 60 warning labels. Yall bought a car seat or a stroller lately? I bet half the cost goes to putting the warning labels on.
This is part of the Pussification of America.

coachc45
10-30-2009, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is apparent that many of you are clueless on the motives for litigation. This family only sued for $850,000 and $750,000 was accounted for in lost wages....The family wanted to change the policy itself and try to promote a safer playing environment for the players so that other families don't have to suffer the same grief and hardship that they endured by losing their son. If this were greed-based tort, then they would have asked for a lot more money.

Anyone ever seen the warning labels on helmets for football? Common sense tells everyone that there are inherent risks associated with playing the game, but the warning label is there to educate people and make sure everyone is well aware of that risk.

And if you are too stupid to know that if you are standing 60'6" in front of a big guy with a big stick who is try to hit the baseball you just threw at him really hard and far.... that you might get hit and be seriously injured...then you are probably too stupid to read the label on the bat anyway.

Plus if you are pitching and the guy is using a bat 60'6" away, how might you read the label.... unless of course it lights up! Maybe the batter should have to read it to the pitcher before he swings!!!

Frivolous lawsuit!!!

Plus, where did you read that they only sued for $850,000, it said the reward was $850,00.... juries have the right to award less or more than what is sued for.

kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by baseballcoach13
If you need a warning label on a helmet to warn you of the danger than you a huge DA and should not be allowed to play. Idiots like this are the reason you cant buy anything that doesn't have 60 warning labels. Yall bought a car seat or a stroller lately? I bet half the cost goes to putting the warning labels on.
This is part of the Pussification of America.

whoa

NastySlot
10-30-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is apparent that many of you are clueless on the motives for litigation. This family only sued for $850,000 and $750,000 was accounted for in lost wages....The family wanted to change the policy itself and try to promote a safer playing environment for the players so that other families don't have to suffer the same grief and hardship that they endured by losing their son. If this were greed-based tort, then they would have asked for a lot more money.

Anyone ever seen the warning labels on helmets for football? Common sense tells everyone that there are inherent risks associated with playing the game, but the warning label is there to educate people and make sure everyone is well aware of that risk.


you re right but....work with louisville slugger to promote more safety......bats are tested...........how about just work together.

and the parents have to hold some sense of responsibility to educate themselves.........heck my daughter used to pitch taught her and told her not to pitch that fast ball down the middle...

baseballcoach13
10-30-2009, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by NastySlot
heck my daughter used to pitch taught her and told her not to pitch that fast ball down the middle...

I LOVE IT...i got hit in the twizzler one time in high school when i threw a cock shot fastball. Worst pain ever. Everyone in the stands is quiet except for my dad who yells, "Bet you wont throw that again."

44INAROW
10-30-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is apparent that many of you are clueless on the motives for litigation. This family only sued for $850,000 and $750,000 was accounted for in lost wages....The family wanted to change the policy itself and try to promote a safer playing environment for the players so that other families don't have to suffer the same grief and hardship that they endured by losing their son. If this were greed-based tort, then they would have asked for a lot more money.

Anyone ever seen the warning labels on helmets for football? Common sense tells everyone that there are inherent risks associated with playing the game, but the warning label is there to educate people and make sure everyone is well aware of that risk.
I am not clueless to motives or anything. I am saying it's a crock of ****. The parents are understandably distraught over the loss of a child. I can't imagine and pray to God I never have to find out that feeling, but sueing the bat manufacturer is not the answer. If it really isn't about the money - why don't they donate 100% of the proceeds to some kind of educational fund to warn about the dangers of sports related injuries?


My ankles have been hurting - I think I'll sue Farriguama Shoe Corp for not warning me that walking on high heels for 8 hours a day will cause ankle problems :doh:

oh - BBDE - you're going to make a fine attorney some day - ;)

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-30-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by 44INAROW
I am not clueless to motives or anything. I am saying it's a crock of ****. The parents are understandably distraught over the loss of a child. I can't imagine and pray to God I never have to find out that feeling, but sueing the bat manufacturer is not the answer. If it really isn't about the money - why don't they donate 100% of the proceeds to some kind of educational fund to warn about the dangers of sports injuries?
My ankles have been hurting - I think I'll sue Farriguama Shoe Corp for not warning me that walking on high heels for 8 hours a day will cause ankle problems :doh:

oh - BBDE - you're going to make a fine attorney some day - ;)

Well, in reality, the family probably didn't really earn that much money if that's all they received...quite a bit of that money they earned went towards legal fees...if $750,000 accounted for lost wages, I'm sure they spent over $100,000 in legal fees, so the family probably came out worse off in the end.

Also, it's not a matter of blaming the bat for killing that young man. Not even close. People have to understand that many of the kids who are playing are quite absent-minded and never stop to consider the consequences of what they do, on the baseball field and in real life. I'm not trying to make excuses for people, but providing proper education by placing warning labels on the baseball bats is a nice reminder. Everyone has made all of these comparisons, but they don't equate to anything valid because they're not appropriate ones to make. Like I said before, the people who think this is a frivolous lawsuit have no real knowledge of tort proceedings themselves.

coachc45
10-30-2009, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, in reality, the family probably didn't really earn that much money if that's all they received...quite a bit of that money they earned went towards legal fees...if $750,000 accounted for lost wages, I'm sure they spent over $100,000 in legal fees, so the family probably came out worse off in the end.

Also, it's not a matter of blaming the bat for killing that young man. Not even close. People have to understand that many of the kids who are playing are quite absent-minded and never stop to consider the consequences of what they do, on the baseball field and in real life. I'm not trying to make excuses for people, but providing proper education by placing warning labels on the baseball bats is a nice reminder. Everyone has made all of these comparisons, but they don't equate to anything valid because they're not appropriate ones to make. Like I said before, the people who think this is a frivolous lawsuit have no real knowledge of tort proceedings themselves.

OK... now I am just a little bit angry here. I have a very good understanding about tort proceedings.... happened to be married to a lawyer for 13 years.

With that said..... I think it is a frivolous lawsuit. The bat and bat manufacturer did not have any fault in the kids death. The lawsuit was put forth because the family wanted someone to compensate them because of their loss. That is the problem with the lawsuit. This family knew the risks involved before they let their kid play ball.... and if the kid is absent-minded, then it is their responsibility to take care of him... not Louisville slugger.

The true problem is not the family, or louisville slugger.... It lies with the lawyers who lie to themselves and try to shove this "we are doing it to protect other people" crap down our throats. When the truth is, the lawyer took the lawsuit for money. So don't try shoveling your crap down my throat and tell me I don't agree because I don't understand how the system works!!!! Graduate from college and get out in the real world.... then maybe I will listen to you!

GIG 'EM by the way!!!!!!!!

kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 02:03 PM
http://thecelebrityautopsy.com/Labels/gun2.jpg

kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 02:05 PM
http://www.businessresourcesystems.com/images/humor/signsharpedges.jpg

Maroon87
10-30-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by kaorder1999
http://thecelebrityautopsy.com/Labels/gun2.jpg

:fnypost:

kaorder1999
10-30-2009, 02:06 PM
http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad93/flyinghi5/warning_small_ls3.jpg

Reds fan
10-30-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by baseballcoach13
I LOVE IT...i got hit in the twizzler one time in high school when i threw a cock shot fastball. Worst pain ever. Everyone in the stands is quiet except for my dad who yells, "Bet you wont throw that again."

:fnypost: :spitlol:

Reds fan
10-30-2009, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, in reality, the family probably didn't really earn that much money if that's all they received...quite a bit of that money they earned went towards legal fees...if $750,000 accounted for lost wages, I'm sure they spent over $100,000 in legal fees, so the family probably came out worse off in the end.

Also, it's not a matter of blaming the bat for killing that young man. Not even close. People have to understand that many of the kids who are playing are quite absent-minded and never stop to consider the consequences of what they do, on the baseball field and in real life. I'm not trying to make excuses for people, but providing proper education by placing warning labels on the baseball bats is a nice reminder. Everyone has made all of these comparisons, but they don't equate to anything valid because they're not appropriate ones to make. Like I said before, the people who think this is a frivolous lawsuit have no real knowledge of tort proceedings themselves.

A shining example of why Tort Reform is needed!

shamu85
10-30-2009, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, in reality, the family probably didn't really earn that much money if that's all they received...quite a bit of that money they earned went towards legal fees...if $750,000 accounted for lost wages, I'm sure they spent over $100,000 in legal fees, so the family probably came out worse off in the end.

Also, it's not a matter of blaming the bat for killing that young man. Not even close. People have to understand that many of the kids who are playing are quite absent-minded and never stop to consider the consequences of what they do, on the baseball field and in real life. I'm not trying to make excuses for people, but providing proper education by placing warning labels on the baseball bats is a nice reminder. Everyone has made all of these comparisons, but they don't equate to anything valid because they're not appropriate ones to make. Like I said before, the people who think this is a frivolous lawsuit have no real knowledge of tort proceedings themselves.

You must stick out like a sore thumb on that campus, huh?

Why is it that liberal college kids are so condescending? If you think warning labels are the way to provide proper education for something, why are you attending college?

Edit: BTW coachc45...right on, right on, right on!!!!

Pendragon13
10-30-2009, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is apparent that many of you are clueless on the motives for litigation. This family only sued for $850,000 and $750,000 was accounted for in lost wages....The family wanted to change the policy itself and try to promote a safer playing environment for the players so that other families don't have to suffer the same grief and hardship that they endured by losing their son. If this were greed-based tort, then they would have asked for a lot more money.

Anyone ever seen the warning labels on helmets for football? Common sense tells everyone that there are inherent risks associated with playing the game, but the warning label is there to educate people and make sure everyone is well aware of that risk. It's clear that you are either a lawyer, in law school or want to be. I feel for anyone that loses a child for any reason...but this lawsuit is frivolous plain and simple. Injuries are a risk in ANY sport and especially in football, baseball and soccer. Did the prosecution find the bat defective or prove that a wood, carbon fiber, fiberglass etc.. bat wouldn't have killed the boy? No they didn't. Also, just because they were awarded $850k doesn't mean they didn't ask for way more than that. Lawyers (your kind of people) are notorious for pushing ludicrous amounts so that if the jury lowers the sum they still stand to make a good chunk of change. The jury clearly awarded the money based on sympathy for the family...but does "lost wages" include all the time they spent meeting with lawyers and court time?:hand:

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-30-2009, 02:44 PM
I will respond when I get back to a computer, but the case wasn't settled out of court so the family received the damages that were awarded by the court. And many people are quick to throw the frivolous label on anything these days when they have never seen a brief in their life. I don't claim to know everything, but I've spent a great part of my college education learning about these things. It was never about the bat being defective or at harm, only there should be warning labels. There is a reason these bats are being banned...because they're dangerous and more so than a normal wooden bat. And apparently people who have dedicated more time and research into state, federal, and Constitutional law disagree with most of the people on here. Hmm.

big daddy russ
10-30-2009, 02:53 PM
I haven't read the responses, but really??? I can't find a single justification for this lawsuit. Just another case of someone looking for someone to blame.

pirate4state
10-30-2009, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by big daddy russ
I haven't read the responses, but really??? I can't find a single justification for this lawsuit. Just another case of someone looking for someone to blame. That's cause you aren't a money hungry lawyer! :D

AND

You weren't a dumbass juror in this trial. :)

DaHop72
10-30-2009, 03:05 PM
I think it all goes back to the hot coffee at McDonald's case. Where has common sense gone? Have people become stupid or what? Why after all these years where people were smart enough to know hot or cold have we lost the ability to discern these types of things. This young man was 18 years old, surely he had seen enough balls hit with aluminum bats through his years to even know himself how fast a baseball came off of one. If the bat needs a warning then so does every baseball that is made and used as well. COMMON SENSE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING.:( :(

shamu85
10-30-2009, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
And apparently people who have dedicated more time and research into state, federal, and Constitutional law disagree with most of the people on here. Hmm.

How do you figure this? It was a jury that awarded the $, not a judge. Just because there is precedent for a case ruling, doesn't mean it is a good Constitutional one. If you think there are no "legislative" judges, you are about as naive as the next college kid.

How about the parents be their kid's warning label?

slpybear the bullfan
10-30-2009, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by baseballcoach13
I LOVE IT...i got hit in the twizzler one time in high school when i threw a cock shot fastball. Worst pain ever. Everyone in the stands is quiet except for my dad who yells, "Bet you wont throw that again."

Funny... very funny!

slpybear the bullfan
10-30-2009, 04:17 PM
Several points to make on this.

1.) The kid was an 18 year old baseball player. I wonder what kind of bats his parents bought for him? Wonder what he used? I'll bet $1000 it was aluminum.

2.) The parents have a website and use it to promote the use of wood over aluminum bats. http://www.forever11.com/ One of the commenters from another site pointed out...

"A ball hit at 86 mph takes .436 seconds to travel 55 feet
A ball hit at 93 mph takes .403 seconds to travel 55 feet
The difference is .033 seconds (wood vs. aluminum)

Does anybody really think the extra three one hundreds of a second in reaction time would have saved the kid?"

Point well made.

3.) Why was the bat mfg sued... instead of the opposing team, or the league, etc. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MONEY. Period.

4.) Wooden bats still can injure a pitcher. Why not sue to have all pitchers wearing pads and helmets?

Sorry, but this stuff drives me nuts.

trojandad
10-30-2009, 04:24 PM
you have to remember, big blue was one that believed a matter of dispute existed because "there have been a lot of articles written on the subject"......he's a good guy but exposure to the world once college releases him will have an effect on his world view eventually.......at least he's more grounded than i was at his age, just still a small bit naive........oh, for the days.....:cool:

ziggy29
10-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Would a warning label have made the slightest bit of difference? Is it going to stop the batter from using it? Is it going to cause the league to ban it and use some other bats?

If not, then the "warning label" was a convenient excuse to obtain jackpot justice. I'm sorry for the family's loss, but to me there's something a little icky about suing in this case, as if it somehow "compensates" for the loss when nothing can.

And I agree with what I've seen before earlier in the thread -- if it wasn't done for monetary gain, prove it by giving the award to an appropriate charity.

[Edit to add: What happens next? Ban aluminum bats and go back to wooden bats which can shatter and become sharp projectiles -- one of which almost killed Dodgers catcher Steve Yeager in 1976? Then what? Ban baseball?]

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-30-2009, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by shamu85
How do you figure this? It was a jury that awarded the $, not a judge. Just because there is precedent for a case ruling, doesn't mean it is a good Constitutional one. If you think there are no "legislative" judges, you are about as naive as the next college kid.

How about the parents be their kid's warning label?

I'm talking about the attorneys for either side. If those who represented Louisville Slugger would think their case was a slam dunk for an appeal they would have made it already. And I understand the matter of precedents for cases and how they can be overturned. And I know there are "legislative" judges. I did an entire senior research seminar over the Supreme Court and have taken numerous classes over it. I understand it quite well.

I don't see how people have the argument that youth is the equivalent of stupidity. I hope that I suddenly become a genius and know everything when I become all of your age! How condescending and what a stupid and ignorant thing to say.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-30-2009, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by ziggy29
Would a warning label have made the slightest bit of difference? Is it going to stop the batter from using it? Is it going to cause the league to ban it and use some other bats?

If not, then the "warning label" was a convenient excuse to obtain jackpot justice. I'm sorry for the family's loss, but to me there's something a little icky about suing in this case, as if it somehow "compensates" for the loss when nothing can.

And I agree with what I've seen before earlier in the thread -- if it wasn't done for monetary gain, prove it by giving the award to an appropriate charity.

[Edit to add: What happens next? Ban aluminum bats and go back to wooden bats which can shatter and become sharp projectiles -- one of which almost killed Dodgers catcher Steve Yeager in 1976? Then what? Ban baseball?]

The family has documented monetary losses that derived from this case and are receiving that money as compensation. And even with that, they're still probably going to lose money.

Z motion 10 out on 2
10-30-2009, 08:02 PM
For what it is worth:

Speaking of the Supreme Court many of their decisions are not unanimous and these are individuals who have reached the pinnacle of their career field. They are the experts and they disagree with each other and have compelling reasons why they do -- just read a dissenting opinion. With that said, I don’t believe a warning label would have stopped the person who was killed from playing baseball in that league. In addition, I would suspect that he like another poster mentioned also used an aluminum bat as well. I don’t agree with the verdict.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-31-2009, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Z motion 10 out on 2
For what it is worth:

Speaking of the Supreme Court many of their decisions are not unanimous and these are individuals who have reached the pinnacle of their career field. They are the experts and they disagree with each other and have compelling reasons why they do -- just read a dissenting opinion. With that said, I don’t believe a warning label would have stopped the person who was killed from playing baseball in that league. In addition, I would suspect that he like another poster mentioned also used an aluminum bat as well. I don’t agree with the verdict.

You have to understand the political ideologies of the justices in certain cases. You can see a correlation between a "Liberal" outcome in a case and a "Conservative" outcome in a case based on the members of the Court in some cases. In other cases, it can be unclear, but it can be quite predictable depending on the case....

Buffgal
10-31-2009, 09:21 AM
1. Unimaginable tragedy for a family to have to deal with sometimes clouds your rationality.

2. Any bat that is used by a good hitter can cause tragic damage to any part of a human body whether you are in the infield or outfield. Ever seen an outfielder lose a well hit ball in the sun....not a pretty sight when that ball plasters his face.

3. Watched alot of baseball games. Some times there are players (no matter the age group) that have no business on the field. The bottom line...you must be able to play at a level, whether it is little league or MLB, that your skills are adequate to be able to protect yourself. That is why I am barely qualified to sit in a yard chair and cover my head on every foul tip...no skills to protect myself and I want to live.

4. Lawyers run this country and many times prey on someone's grief.

5. While I don't agree at all with the verdict, Louisville Slugger will be OK. I know plenty of baseball guys and from the # of bats I have purchased alone, we have together almost funded this verdict.

Condolences and prayers to the family on their loss. Hopefully they will do something worthwhile with the $$ to honor their son's loss and remember his love for the game.

ivchris
10-31-2009, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by STANG RED
In the real world sometimes bad things happen to good people. Its just a part of life. The lawsuit was BS, and so was the verdict.

:iagree:

XtremeCouture
10-31-2009, 11:51 AM
i say sue bud selig since he's the commissioner of the league these players were trying to get into. if baseball didn't exist to pay mediocre athletes millions of dollars those two dudes would never have been playing. this is bud selig's fault. sue him and get more money.

OldNavy
10-31-2009, 01:45 PM
They need to sue the baseball manufacturer. There should be a warning on the baseball that the pitcher can read that tells him the ball will come off an aluminum bat faster than a wooden bat. Then he would be aware. He can't read the warning on the bat from the pitcher's mound. In some leagues the pitcher never bats so would not have a reason the read the warning on the bat.

The ball manufacturers should build a dialed down ball that come off the aluminum bat at the same speed as regular balls come off wooden bats. Then the umpire would be responsible for seeing that the pitcher had the right ball, and if he didn't then the family could sue the ump!

Of course if Pitchers wore goalie gear from the NHL, we would not be having this discussion.

slpybear the bullfan
10-31-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I don't see how people have the argument that youth is the equivalent of stupidity. I hope that I suddenly become a genius and know everything when I become all of your age! How condescending and what a stupid and ignorant thing to say.

Here's the deal. You can call it stupidity of Youth and it is just a cheap shot. You can call it the Ignorance of Youth and its is probably more accurate.

The undeniable fact is that the longer you live, the more you learn and the more your worldview changes. Does that mean the youth and young adults of this world have nothing to offer? No. It just means that there is a TON of empirical evidence that shows young people make large shifts in beliefs and opinions as they grow older. That makes is a pretty safe bet that most kids will do the same when they grow older.

This wasn't meant to be condescending. But I think you probably agree with this.

mustanglonghorn
10-31-2009, 03:49 PM
Keep watching this case, I bet it gets overturned at the higher levels because of the inherent risk issue of playing sports...they only way it should be allowed to stand is if the bat is defective (umps should have checked the bat before the game started, if they didn't its on them not the batter or the bat company), or if their was malicious intent (newrly impossible to prove due to the fact that no one could know that the ball would have hit the kid in the head), and lastly it should fall under the classification of random event........all in all it is what is wrong with society today, bad things happen to good peole, I am sorry they young man died and my prayers are witht he family but its not the bat manufator's fault

alaskacat
10-31-2009, 04:01 PM
[i]Like I said before, the people who think this is a frivolous lawsuit have no real knowledge of tort proceedings themselves. [/B]

and that is exactly the problem with America today. Tort cases should be totally abolished, or at least limited, and have to go through a panel to judge if the case is frivolus in the first place. Its nothing more than a racket.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
10-31-2009, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Here's the deal. You can call it stupidity of Youth and it is just a cheap shot. You can call it the Ignorance of Youth and its is probably more accurate.

The undeniable fact is that the longer you live, the more you learn and the more your worldview changes. Does that mean the youth and young adults of this world have nothing to offer? No. It just means that there is a TON of empirical evidence that shows young people make large shifts in beliefs and opinions as they grow older. That makes is a pretty safe bet that most kids will do the same when they grow older.

This wasn't meant to be condescending. But I think you probably agree with this.

I disagree with it 110% percent, because there are only a handful of posters on here who have a higher level of intelligence than I do. Stupidity and ignorance mean almost the same thing by definition. And learning may come from experience, but for you to try to put a label on what I've experienced is ridiculous because you don't know what I have seen or done in my life. You also don't know what I have read, listened to, and overall what I have learned. Beliefs change over time, but values do not...and I think many people confuse the two. What I value as a person makes me a Democrat. What I have learned keeps me a Democrat. Also, what I have learned tells me more about this case and gives me more insight than most people would care to acknowledge. Any time there is a debate on here, everyone always has the same condescending idea that because I'm only 21 years old, I'm all of the sudden ignorant and lack knowledge. Instead of talking about the points, they want to talk about my age. That doesn't make anybody look right. In my opinion, anybody who does that is stupid and ignorant themselves. It also shows me that they lack anything concrete to say that would prove anything that I say as false. True, I've learned more and more the older that I have become, but that doesn't mean that I haven't formulated deeply-rooted values and learned a lot in the amount of time that I've been on this earth. I feel like a lot of the people on here who are much, much older than me have some catching up to do with me in regards to intelligence. I don't care if that pisses anyone off, but it is what it is, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong then start off by arguing the point and stop attacking me. Because I genuinely believe that the people who think that they are smarter than me because of my age are stupid and ignorant themselves. Knowledge is something that available to almost everyone and going out and getting it is what sets people apart, not age.

Also, people are screaming for tort reform/abolition? Are you serious? Not all cases are frivolous and uncalled for, but in essence you are willing to sacrifice your own civil rights. One of the worst things that could have happened to our civil rights in Texas was the tort reform that was passed a few years ago, ESPECIALLY that in medical malpractice reform.

There are a lot of people who really don't know what they're talking about.

coachc45
10-31-2009, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I disagree with it 110% percent, because there are only a handful of posters on here who have a higher level of intelligence than I do. Stupidity and ignorance mean almost the same thing by definition. And learning may come from experience, but for you to try to put a label on what I've experienced is ridiculous because you don't know what I have seen or done in my life. You also don't know what I have read, listened to, and overall what I have learned. Beliefs change over time, but values do not...and I think many people confuse the two. What I value as a person makes me a Democrat. What I have learned keeps me a Democrat. Also, what I have learned tells me more about this case and gives me more insight than most people would care to acknowledge. Any time there is a debate on here, everyone always has the same condescending idea that because I'm only 21 years old, I'm all of the sudden ignorant and lack knowledge. Instead of talking about the points, they want to talk about my age. That doesn't make anybody look right. In my opinion, anybody who does that is stupid and ignorant themselves. It also shows me that they lack anything concrete to say that would prove anything that I say as false. True, I've learned more and more the older that I have become, but that doesn't mean that I haven't formulated deeply-rooted values and learned a lot in the amount of time that I've been on this earth. I feel like a lot of the people on here who are much, much older than me have some catching up to do with me in regards to intelligence. I don't care if that pisses anyone off, but it is what it is, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong then start off by arguing the point and stop attacking me. Because I genuinely believe that the people who think that they are smarter than me because of my age are stupid and ignorant themselves. Knowledge is something that available to almost everyone and going out and getting it is what sets people apart, not age.

Also, people are screaming for tort reform/abolition? Are you serious? Not all cases are frivolous and uncalled for, but in essence you are willing to sacrifice your own civil rights. One of the worst things that could have happened to our civil rights in Texas was the tort reform that was passed a few years ago, ESPECIALLY that in medical malpractice reform.

There are a lot of people who really don't know what they're talking about.

You are one very condescending young man! Intelligence is a very good thing to have, I happen to have a 139 IQ myself, but intelligence and education is NEVER, EVER a substitute for experience. People claim that you should get out into the real world and experience it before coming on here and telling people how stupid they are, because you should.

Also because people do not agree with you, does not mean that they are wrong or "don't know what they are talking about". I, as previously stated, was married to a lawyer for 13 years and have helped her do enough research, write enough briefs, and prepare for enough cases that i think I have a pretty good grasp on lawyering. Probably more than you, because mine has been hands on practice, not just theory. I do think this is a Frivolous law suit, not because of "Law".... but because of common sense. Something that in spite of their IQ, most people do not develop until they have "experience".

slpybear the bullfan
11-01-2009, 01:26 AM
Let me try this one more time then I will quit.

You are an intelligent 21 yo. You have valuable opinions that is a result of the world view created from 21 years of learning and experience.

I almost 100% guarantee that when you are 20 years older your worldview will be modified. Because millions of datapoints of empirical evidence says it will.

How will your worldview change? I have no idea... you might become more liberal, more conservative, who knows?

My point was/is that you need to pay as much respect to your elders who may have believed as you do at your age, but then modified those beliefs as they got older. Just as much as older people need to stop being condescending because you are 21 and not 41 or 61.

I am done. This thread is more pointless than the Big 12 vs. SEC thread, (and is a shining example of why the internet will eventually ruin human interaction.)



Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I disagree with it 110% percent, because there are only a handful of posters on here who have a higher level of intelligence than I do. Stupidity and ignorance mean almost the same thing by definition. And learning may come from experience, but for you to try to put a label on what I've experienced is ridiculous because you don't know what I have seen or done in my life. You also don't know what I have read, listened to, and overall what I have learned. Beliefs change over time, but values do not...and I think many people confuse the two. What I value as a person makes me a Democrat. What I have learned keeps me a Democrat. Also, what I have learned tells me more about this case and gives me more insight than most people would care to acknowledge. Any time there is a debate on here, everyone always has the same condescending idea that because I'm only 21 years old, I'm all of the sudden ignorant and lack knowledge. Instead of talking about the points, they want to talk about my age. That doesn't make anybody look right. In my opinion, anybody who does that is stupid and ignorant themselves. It also shows me that they lack anything concrete to say that would prove anything that I say as false. True, I've learned more and more the older that I have become, but that doesn't mean that I haven't formulated deeply-rooted values and learned a lot in the amount of time that I've been on this earth. I feel like a lot of the people on here who are much, much older than me have some catching up to do with me in regards to intelligence. I don't care if that pisses anyone off, but it is what it is, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong then start off by arguing the point and stop attacking me. Because I genuinely believe that the people who think that they are smarter than me because of my age are stupid and ignorant themselves. Knowledge is something that available to almost everyone and going out and getting it is what sets people apart, not age.

Also, people are screaming for tort reform/abolition? Are you serious? Not all cases are frivolous and uncalled for, but in essence you are willing to sacrifice your own civil rights. One of the worst things that could have happened to our civil rights in Texas was the tort reform that was passed a few years ago, ESPECIALLY that in medical malpractice reform.

There are a lot of people who really don't know what they're talking about.

LH Panther Mom
11-01-2009, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by coachc45
I happen to have a 139 IQ myself,
Well, mine is 141 so :taunt: :taunt: ;) . That, however doesn't make me "smarter" than you, nor does it make my opinion any more knowledgeable or valuable than yours or anyone else's on this thread.

The question in the title was "what is your take?". ka, apparently you need to be more specific in your questions. My "take" on your question is that you are asking for opinions on the lawsuit. So, that's how I'm answering.

Are you freaking kidding me????? Anyone know a decent lawyer? I would like to sue someone for Brandons' lost season and medical bills not covered by insurance. Maybe THSCA? Maybe UT? They didn't have a warning label on DKR field. How about the selection committee or Coach Owens? Oh wait...we signed a waiver that basically said we knew there were risks in allowing him to participate and there would be "no fault" if something happened.

While the young mans' death is unfortunate, it shouldn't be blamed on the bat, any more than it should be blamed on the ball that actually hit him or the player that swung the bat that hit the ball that hit the kid. :(


Now, ka, if the question of "what is your take?" was not asking for opinions but rather "what do you know to be fact?", then I got nothing. :p

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
11-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Let me try this one more time then I will quit.

You are an intelligent 21 yo. You have valuable opinions that is a result of the world view created from 21 years of learning and experience.

I almost 100% guarantee that when you are 20 years older your worldview will be modified. Because millions of datapoints of empirical evidence says it will.

How will your worldview change? I have no idea... you might become more liberal, more conservative, who knows?

My point was/is that you need to pay as much respect to your elders who may have believed as you do at your age, but then modified those beliefs as they got older. Just as much as older people need to stop being condescending because you are 21 and not 41 or 61.

I am done. This thread is more pointless than the Big 12 vs. SEC thread, (and is a shining example of why the internet will eventually ruin human interaction.)

It has never been a matter of disrespect...but I assure you that's how I take it when someone tries to say I don't know what I'm talking about because of my age. Which happens. Often.

Also coachc45, apparently you don't understand because you're still saying that it is frivolous based on common sense. Common sense would tell you that there is more to the case than what is on the surface. Everyone is just invariably creating the worst-case-scenario for why litigation took place and running with it without putting any thought into it whatsoever.