Joe, you misunderstood me. I think both the plantiff and the lawyer should be financially liable for the defense court costs if the judge rules a case to be frivolous. After all the lawyer is supposed to be the professional in this matter.

5/20/2008 5:08:55 PM

okay, and i still agree with you in principle. If the lawsuit is truly frivolous and not merely perceived to be by a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth fascists in populist clothing.

and no one here can say this lawsuit, in particular, is frivolous. no one here has the judgment, expertise or specific case-knowlege to declare that it is. I dont care what foxnews.com or Hannity or O'Reilly says about it.

let the parents have their day in court. its their Seventh Amendment right. And if any of you freedom-haters dont like it, GTFO and move to Saudi Arabia or something.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 5:47:05 PM

You assume some risks when you play a sport where you throw a ball as hard as you can towards another player and he tries to hit it as hard as they can back your way. Im just sayin.

5/20/2008 5:48:49 PM

the family absolutely has the right to bring the lawsuit. but the country should have the right to terminate their lives when they inevitably lose the lawsuit

5/20/2008 5:50:03 PM

yeah, i dont recall that part being in the Bill of Rights, where the right to bring civil cases is enumerated.

do you think the founders DIDNT have frivolous cases in their day?

motherfuck.

you people are incredible in your wide-eyed naïveté.

5/20/2008 5:53:38 PM

I also don't recall the Bill of Rights saying that you should have the right to waste to money and time of all the other taxpayers. Let's thin the herd of some of these stupid people. That's MY solution to global warming

5/20/2008 5:56:43 PM

Kill the stupid people, burn them for fuel?

5/20/2008 5:57:39 PM

What Would MOSES Say?



"Soylent Green Is People!!!!1"

5/20/2008 6:02:15 PM

Again, I think we're using different definitions of frivolous.

By "frivolous," I don't mean "shouldn't be allowed."

I mean stupid and a waste of time/money.

5/20/2008 7:09:06 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."

You're misunderstanding my logic. The launch speed required to hit a home run IS independent of the bat used. What I'm saying is that if a ball hit at that speed has the potential to stop a kid's heart, since it's reasonable to expect that you could hit a home run with any bat, then any kind of bat presents a reasonable risk of an accident like this. If any bat presents a potential danger, then the degree of danger becomes less relevant, since the kid reasonably assumes that risk simply by taking the pitcher's mound, regardless of the kind of bat he's facing.

For someone who's normally pretty level-headed, how on earth did you go from my starting point and end up at inviting me to "GTFO and move to some commie totalitarian regime"? Where'd the civility go?

As for the assumptions you mention... read closer. I'm not saying that a kid can't dodge a line drive; I'm saying it's a reasonable risk that he might not dodge it. And besides the fact that you're missing my logic entirely that's based around minimum speeds still being dangerous--I'm no statistician or physicist, but could you provide me with a study showing that line drives would be travelling at 10 times the speed of a home run?

People have the right to bring any case; I don't think it will be ruled frivolous, but I don't think they will win.

I suppose aluminum bats might be against regulations in professional baseball because professional athletes might be a bit stronger than a little-leaguer.

5/20/2008 7:28:52 PM

that is precisely why aluminum bats are not allowed in the majors, Shadowrunner. A line-drive off a major league pitcher would kill him almost instantly.

5/20/2008 7:45:14 PM

Shadowrunner, LOOK first of all, youre applying adult logic about knowledge and inherent risk and contracts to 12-year old kids, who just want to play baseball..

But then you go completely off the edge to to try and state that a ball hit a 'x' velocity at some unspecified trajectory is the "minimum required" home run velocity to just barely plop a ball lazily over the homerun fence, and therefore a pitcher should/should not/may/may not (whatever) be able to effectively dodge a baseball travelling at that velocity ...

... thats just ridiculous to even try and go there --- it's freakin' baseball for chrissakes, not a high school physics field trip to the playground. i'm not even going to try and dissect your faulty "physics". it's just flat out misguided. do you even understand vector components of force? you're comparing apples to oranges at best

Look all your speculation aside, the fact is that this bat is specially manufactured to drive a baseball as hard and as far as possible, like some sort of oversized titanium golf driver ... but instead of being marketed to fatass viagra-popping 50-year old men, it's being sold to overzealous 11- and 12-year old kids. ... and the Little League Association has sanctioned it as an approved bat.

the fact is, a line drive with this mega-bat by a 12-year-old has nearly killed another 12-year-old, left him brain-damaged and physically disabled for life, with mounting medical bills and probably no end in sight.

now the argument being made is that this bat has crossed a line, that there comes a point at which too much is too much. how many more performance-enhancing devices do we need for middle schoolers?

IS it too much? IS it irresponsible? I don't know. that is for the court to decide.

But someone's kid was almost killed, now irreparably disabled,and all you armchair legal experts can do is spout your rightwing redneck bullshit like "fuck those parents" "tough shit, life sucks" "waste of resources this" "frivolous that"

you know, god help you when your kid or brother or wife or parent gets injured or killed, and there's a question of neglect or malpractice on someone's part that may or may not be the cause of it.

... and we'll see how you feel when the rabidly frothy property-rights-first crowd begins screeching how you're wasting their oxygen or some other resource and get told to sit down, shut up, and "deal with it"

if thats not what you're saying, then I'm not directing this at you. if it is, you know who you are, and you should beware because karma's a real bitch.






[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 8:08:12 PM

Quote :

"now the argument being made is that this bat has crossed a line, that there comes a point at which too much is too much. how many more performance-enhancing devices do we need for middle schoolers? IS it too much? IS it irresponsible? I don't know. that is for the court to decide. "

That is NOT a question for the courts to decide.

Whether it is unreasonably dangerous or not is for the PARENTS to decide. They did.

There is no moral right to sue someone for providing a dangerous product/environment, when you knowingly and voluntarily consented to the activity. End of story.

The only questions are: Did they know the conditions under which the game was played, or would a reasonable person know? And did they voluntarily consent?

If both answers are YES, then it is IRRELEVANT how 'dangerous' or 'unreasonable' the situation appears to the court. The parents consented. Period.

The bat could be capable of hitting a pitch back at 200 mph, and it would not be relevant, if there was knowing consent.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM. Reason : a]

5/20/2008 8:13:33 PM

that's crazy talk, man! I should also be able to sue the makers of handguns because handguns fire bullets!

5/20/2008 8:15:19 PM

Quote :

"Whether it is unreasonably dangerous or not is for the PARENTS to decide. They did."

the parents rely on the Little League Association professional judgement to keep their kid reasonably safe. Parents should not and can not go inspect every opposing team's equipment and perform safety analyses on them.

now a kid is disabled for life. the parents CLAIM the Little League Ass'n failed to live up to their obligation by allowing a bat that was neglectfully manufactured and marketed to kids who don't have the developmental capacity to protect themselves. The League and manufacturer deny that claim.

so this IS an issue for the court to decide.

now you can go and read your Ayn Rand books some more, and feel superior in your knowledge that you have all of the world's social problems figured out.

meanwhile, the courts will continue to rule on these and other "real world" issues






[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 8:20:23 PM

everyone already knows the courts are fucked up, anyway.

5/20/2008 8:25:26 PM

Ummm, this is 'real world.'

The parents really did knowingly expose their child to a risk, and then really did want to blame others for what they later believed their own poor judgment.

Again, the real world says, "tough cookies."

5/20/2008 8:28:38 PM

nah, fuck you. you're wrong.

see here, the real world, at least in AMERICA, the nation founded on the RULE OF LAW, says "we'll work it out in court"

so tough titties to you, and the rest of you America-haters.

that is all.





[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 8:31:27 PM

Quote :

" the parent's relied on the Little League Association professional judgement to keep their kid reasonably safe. The parents should not and can not go inspect every opposing team's equipment and perform safety analyses."

You have got to be kidding me. I expect them to perform safety analyses? You bet I do. I expect them to be non-retarded enough to be able to know of the existence of a line drive, and think "What if that hit my son in the head/heart/balls?

As mentioned, there is no need for complicated technical analysis of the bat. The ball comes off really hard sometimes. The ball can hurt a player seriously. That is common knowledge that ANY reasonable person already has.

Quote :

"now a kid is disabled for life. the parents claim the Little League Ass'n failed to live up to their obligation by allowing a bat that was neglectfully manufactured and marketed to kids who don't have the developmental capacity to protect themselves."

They are marketed to kids. But guess what: kids don't have any money. Parents do. And parents know that accidents happen in baseball. If the kid doesn't have the developmental capacity to protect himself, then the parent is obligated to protect him. If the parent rules baseball an unreasonable danger, then it is their job to keep him out.

But you can't have full knowledge of the conditions (really fast moving baseballs around 12 year olds), consent, and then cry later that it wasn't reasonably safe. WHAT DO THEY KNOW NOW THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW BEFORE SENDING THEIR KID TO PLAY? If the parents aren't retarded, they haven't learned anything. They already knew a line drive to the head would hurt.

Quote :

"so this IS an issue for the court to decide."

People like you are the reason our society is full of paranoid, whining crybabies.

Quote :

"you can go and read your Ayn Rand books some more, and feel superior in your knowledge that you have all of the world's social problems figured out."

I've never read Rand. I just know that if I consent to have my kid play a sport, in public where I know the conditions, I cannot lay blame on anyone else if something bad happens accidentally in the game. I knowingly assumed the risk. Period.

You're on the side of the fat parents and kids who want to sue mickey d's aren't you? "But, but, but! They provided unreasonably dangerous and fattening food! You can't expect each customer to conduct chemical and nutritional analysis of every item! That's ridiculous!"

No, but every court should say to each dumbshit: It's a fuckin Big Mac you lard-ass. If you didn't know this was the outcome of eating three every day, then I'm going to dismiss your suit and stick you in the psych prison.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 8:42 PM. Reason : a]

5/20/2008 8:35:38 PM

Quote :

"Shadowrunner, LOOK first of all, youre applying adult logic about knowledge and inherent risk and contracts to 12-year old kids, who just want to play baseball.. "

The 12-year-old isn't suing, either (pre-emptive "LOL OF COURSE NOT, HE'S BRAIN-DAMAGED"); it's the parents, and it's the parents who assume that responsibility and risk when they decide to let their child be a pitcher.

Quote :

"But then you go completely off the edge to to try and state that a ball hit a 'x' velocity at some unspecified trajectory is the "minimum required" home run velocity to just barely plop a ball lazily over the homerun fence, and therefore a pitcher should/should not/may/may not (whatever) be able to effectively dodge a baseball travelling at that velocity ... ... thats just ridiculous to even try and go there --- it's freakin' baseball for chrissakes, not a high school physics field trip to the playground. i'm not even going to try and dissect your faulty "physics". it's just flat out misguided. do you even understand vector components of force? you're comparing apples to oranges at best"

You clearly are either still misunderstanding my argument, or you're flat out trolling at this point. I have a master's in math and a minor in physics, and never got below an A in any class; I think I understand vector components. You're not following my logic; if you were quibbling with my assumptions, then we could have some back and forth. But it seems like you're not even grasping the logical structure of my argument. I purposely didn't do any calculations; I was laying out a framework for how a defense lawyer should argue the case to show that merely stepping onto the pitcher's mound should constitute an accepted risk.

Yes, backspin provides a lot of lift that propels a home run. But you talking about "barely plopping a ball lazily over the fence" makes it sound like you think you don't have to hit a ball hard in order to get it out of the park. It's travelling fast when it leaves the bat, and my argument in its simplest form was that if it's plausible that a kid might not react enough to dodge a ball hit at that speed, then it's sure as hell plausible that he might not react fast enough to dodge a line drive.

The home run distance simply provides a convenient and easy benchmark for being able to estimate how fast a baseball can be hit off the bat without having to actually run the experiment. ie. Clearly, hitting a home run is possible, so clearly it must be possible to hit a baseball at least X mph off the bat. Therefore it's possible to also hit a line drive at least X mph. If X mph is fast enough to possibly hit a kid before he reacts, and X mph is fast enough to stop the kid's heart if he gets hit, then it doesn't matter how much faster the line drive might be driven. Sufficient condition.

What I was claiming, and this is the part you can quibble with, was that I'm guessing X mph is fast enough for both of those claims I just mentioned. I'm not a doctor, I don't know the kind of force required to stop a kid's heart through their pubescent ribs.

Since it's possible to hit a home run with any kind of bat, it must be possible to hit a ball at X mph with any kind of bat. Since any bat can deliver that kind of speed, you're taking that risk by stepping onto the pitcher's mound against any bat.

Any additional speed added by the aluminum bat may be excessive, sure. I'm not trying to debate that an aluminum bat can hit a ball at higher speeds than a wood bat; I'm just making my argument independent of the bat characteristics and showing that it's an inherent risk to pitching, period. There are probably dual reasons for banning them, one being putting a constraint on the max distance a ball can be hit, and the other being safety. But it's tough to define the point where a batmaker becomes "negligent" when you can argue that the same thing could have happened with any bat.

Quote :

" But someone's kid was almost killed, now irreparably disabled,and all you armchair legal experts can do is spout your rightwing redneck bullshit like "fuck those parents" "tough shit, life sucks" "waste of resources this" "frivolous that" you know, god help you when your kid or brother or wife or parent gets injured or killed, and there's a question of neglect or malpractice on someone's part that may or may not be the cause of it. ... and we'll see how you feel when the rabidly frothy property-rights-first crowd begins screeching how you're wasting their oxygen or some other resource and get told to sit down, shut up, and "deal with it" if thats not what you're saying, then I'm not directing this at you. if it is, you know who you are, and you should beware because karma's a real bitch."

I didn't say any of that, so I hope you were just rambling on from the start of your post and directing the vitriol at someone else.

Quote :

"Look all your speculation aside, the fact is that this bat is specially manufactured to drive a baseball as hard and as far as possible, like some sort of oversized titanium golf driver ... but instead of being marketed to fatass viagra-popping 50-year old men, it's being sold to overzealous 11- and 12-year old kids. ... and the Little League Association has sanctioned it as an approved bat. the fact is, a line drive with this mega-bat by a 12-year-old has nearly killed another 12-year-old, left him brain-damaged and physically disabled for life, with mounting medical bills and probably no end in sight."

Firstly, where are you getting that this is a top-of-the-line "mega-bat"? Not much info is given other than the length and weight and the name, nothing about its quality or the technology of it other than the fact that it was aluminum. A quick google search reveals it for sale for $50, and I can find other Louisville Sluggers in the "Platinum" line for $200, so it's probably just your average aluminum bat. Sure, marketed to be powerful, etc, but not a "mega-bat." I think you're exaggerating for emphasis, when it would be better for us all to deal in facts and not go into histrionics.

The fact is, Little League regulations require manufacturers to tune down aluminum bats to a similar level of action as a wood bat; even those $200 "mega-bats" are bound by those regulations, so there's an upper limit on how hard a ball can be hit by it. The danger, and the difference in technology between low- and high-end, is that they're lighter and more rigid, so the appeal is that it gives kids more control because it's lighter and a larger sweet spot because it's more rigid, in effect helping them hit the ball better.

The increase in swing speed due to weight allows them to hit the ball marginally harder, I'm sure, but there's a limit to how much you can detune the bat performance for safety before you impact game mechanics, the ability to hit home runs, etc, without decreasing the size of the field or making other changes to the game. Similarly, on a given size field, you can only move the pitcher's mound back so far before it hits second base or makes it ridiculously easy for the batter to react and hit the ball. My claim is that in order to have a balanced game of baseball, the pitcher is inherently going to be at risk, no matter what bat you use.

That basically negates the reasoning given for the lawsuit as described in the article. If no bat could be approved as safe for use by children, then no children should play baseball.

I'm not making any judgements or claims about the parents. I'm not saying their clutching at straws or grubbing for money; it's a tragic situation for them to be in, and goddamn it sucks for all involved that their kid got hurt. I'm saying their lawsuit as described in the article has flawed reasoning, and that if they want to sue, it shouldn't be because the bat was dangerous because all bats are dangerous; they should sue over the claim that it was excessively so, which I think would be very difficult to prove.

5/20/2008 11:14:32 PM

Quote :

"That basically negates the reasoning given for the lawsuit as described in the article. If no bat could be approved as safe for use by children, then no children should play baseball. "

Quoting myself because I'm a dork, and I'm lazy.

But another alternative might be that we should stick to coach's pitch until high school, since coaches are old enough to accept the risk of being a pitcher, and pitchers are pretty obviously the ones at the most risk.

5/20/2008 11:20:33 PM

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2008 1:23:27 AM

It is funny how things like this are a non-issue 99.9% of the time and then something freak happens like this and everyone panics and starts the oh shit we gotta do something about this. When is the last time something serious like this happened to a kid?

Quote :

"that is precisely why aluminum bats are not allowed in the majors, Shadowrunner. A line-drive off a major league pitcher would kill him almost instantly."

The number one reason MLB uses wood is because they can afford them. Major leaguers get hit often and do not suffer major injuries....their distance is 60'6" and LL is like 45'. That increases reaction time plus MLBers are really good and can catch the ball or get out of the way. Call me a hardass but maybe more emphasis should be put on teaching the kids the proper finishing position to catch a ball hit right to their chest?

Quote :

" 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."

Did nobody see this part since it wasn't posted in this thread? Police Athletic League? WTF? Also wasn't this a bush-league thing him pitching in a police league? Why would a 12-year old pitch to adults???

Ohh any word on how the kid is doing?

5/21/2008 2:20:21 AM

Quick search shows that 3-4 kids die every year playing Little League, over 3/4's of those coming from ball impacts:

Quote :

"An earlier study by the CPSC found 88 baseball-related deaths to children ages 5-14 between 1973 and 1995, an average of four per year. Ball impact accounted for 68. Of these 68, 38 were ball impact to the chest, 21 to the head, and nine were to other areas. "

Try googling Police Athletic League before embarrassing yourself. It's a children's league just like Little League, not a cops' weekend softball game.


Also, well-thought-out response, Joe.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2008 8:15:20 AM

Sucks for this kid and I don't like the lawsuit, but it I'd like to see the leagues do a better job of enforcing bat regulations to control batted ball speed. It certainly won't stop every accident, but you need to give pitchers and fielders enough time to react.

There are many medical studies that have come up with "safe" reaction times required for most fielders. I have no problem with them looking at the objective scientific data and actually enforcing rules to achieve reasonable safety conditions.

(I believe the rules are already in place -- they just aren't enforced)

------------
Just read more of the thread -- The type of bat certainly does make a difference in batted ball speed. Some people don't seem to believe this. A lower batted ball speed absolutely does reduce the chance of injury. That's why titanium bats and other kinds of bats are banned in various leagues.

A controlled study on batted ball speed and available pitcher reaction time in slowpitch softball
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/223

There are also studies addressing the balls, too

5/21/2008 8:30:12 AM

Quote :

" 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. "

Skydiving is different but not at all for the reasons you mention. In skydiving you are confronted with a waiver up front that states you can be killed as a result of things beyond your control, including the negligence of another party and you have to initial every paragraph and in some cases be videoed stating you agree with every paragraph. I don't have kids in little league but I imagine the waiver is not there. I know most of you know nothing of skydiving, but it's far more complex in terms of why people get injured or killed than the parachute didn't open. Equipment problems are a very small fraction of accidents.

Maybe they need waivers so people are clear that objects moving at 100 mph can cause injury.

Quote :

"you know, god help you when your kid or brother or wife or parent gets injured or killed, and there's a question of neglect or malpractice on someone's part that may or may not be the cause of it."

I still say suck it up, if you don't like the inherent risk then take up tennis. Millions of kids play baseball everyday and nothing happens, you can never engineer away danger for anything. Granted I've seen people pay for their decisions for 10 years and have gotten a little numb to it



[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM. Reason : -]

5/21/2008 11:19:28 AM

This is retarded.
Bats hit balls, and they are supposed to be traveling at a relatively high rate or speed (idealy)
I don't care what type of bat is being used. A person got hit by the ball and was injured, it happens. This could have been a wooden bat, should the family still sue the bat maker?

Why not sue the kid who hit the ball? Isn't it really his fault? Why not sue the pitcher, obviously he threw the ball too hard....Why not sue the owner of the ball park, its their fault as well....
Sue the city for allowing the park to be built.....

5/21/2008 11:49:56 AM

this is simply another example of the typical american culture of skirting responsibility and passing on the buck

5/21/2008 11:53:25 AM

Quote :

"this is simply another example of the typical american culture blah blah blah "

not quite.

this is simply another example of pompous, self-righteous, self-imaged bootstrapping Birchers getting all worked up in a spittlefest with contrived indignation over the perceived collapse of some imagined 1950's-era Pollyanna society full of hard-working, Jesus-loving white folks that their old beloved and toothless grandpa always prattles on about over every Thanksgiving dinner.




[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2008 12:31:47 PM

lol

i think both of our statements apply

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM. Reason : jank]

5/21/2008 12:33:47 PM