Another lawsuit involving bats
 

This time, it's Easton's turn. Similar to the Louisville Slugger lawsuit, but fortunately, this one did not involve a fatality.

I'm sure this is just the start of it all...

Family sues Easton after metal bat accident leaves boy deaf in ear - Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

I don't see how the batmaker can be held responsible. I CAN see how the league and/or organization might be held responsible for not restricting bat specs enough to keep things safe (although I'd be against them on that argument), but legally, what did Easton do that might be considered illegal?

I can't imagine Remington being sued (successfully) due to injuries/fatalities during a clay pigeon match. I don't see how this could stand.
The fact is, the kid's parents, knowing the hazards, financed their son's participation in the event, signed the release waivers, transported or arranged his transport, and provided encouragement to continue his participation. As they are charged with ensuring his safety until his 18th birthday, if there is anyone to sue for his injuries, it is them for contributory negligence and child endangerment.

Quite often, they just sue everyone involved and let the judge/jury sort out who's responsible.

I agree, if anyone should be responsible, it should be the league/organizing body. And even then, I think that's a stretch.

Have they arrested the batter? :rolleyes: :(

Because being good americans, people not only have a right, but an obligation to get as much free money as possible regardless of the source!!:eek:

It IS frivilous and any intelligent judge wouldn't accept the case. Wait a minute, did I just use an oxymoron? Well, as our litigious society has proven there seem to be a lot of judges out there who cannot make an intelligent judgment and lawsuits go from valid claims to pity-parties that make little effort to prove fault and rely on the emotions of the jury.

The lawsuit is absurd and if I'm on Easton's legal staff, I'm looking for a countersuit to hold those who provided the gun....er, bat and put it in the batter's hands. I would also research the league and coach to determine if there was any reasonable effort to coach the pitcher to field his position. I would also look at the glove he was wearing. Was it an appropriate sized glove or something oversized and heavy which made it difficult to manuever and use to field the ball.

Then there is LL. Is the bat legal? If so, why isn't the responsible party held accountable for allowing the gun....er, bat in the game?

What it all comes down to, at least in my mind as a juror, would be can they prove that it was this particular type of bat that effected an injury that would not have occurred otherwise. IOW, can they prove the same incident would not have occurred if it was a wood bat?

Let the insurance companies sue the **** out of each other and maybe someday a lightbulb will go off about how ludicrous it is just going around in circles.

Come to think of it, if you really want to solve the problem, stop carrying insurance. If there is no insurance, there is no target worth going after in these ridiculous cases. :rolleyes: Yeah, I know that is just as ridiculous, but how did anyone survive 60 years ago before litigation became a full-time sport?

I wonder if the same kid who was injured had his own metal bat that he brought to the games...

No one's trying to field the clay pigeon while the Remington is being used, either.

The Remington example reminds me of the attempts years ago by some gun-phobic cities to hold firearms manufacturers liable for damages wrought upon society by criminals using those firearms.

This back-door attack on the Second Amendment gained some traction among the anti-gun crowd. The New York Times praised it as an "interesting" new approach.

However, the courts consistently held that for a company to be liable, their product had to be defective in some way. (A couple of anti-gun judges went along with the program but were later overruled.)

The court rulings, along with subsequent action by state legislatures and I think even Congress, put an end to the notion that the maker of a nondefective product can be held liable for the misuse of that product.

Yes, once deep pockets (insurance companies) became involved, there were nothing but perverse incentives for trying to hit the lottery by suing somebody. Judges, lawyers, everybody benefited. Even insurance companies protested only weakly, since the litigation explosion allowed them to justify higher premiums.

Since I moved to Alabama, I've become certified as a pistol instructor. The legal advice I've received from various sources (a law professor, a local judge, my lawyer cousin, other instructors) is that if any prospective participant in a course asks whether I have insurance, say that the class has just become full and that the next session is scheduled for 2025—in Greenland.

RadioBlue said, "I don't see how this could stand."

It probably wouldn't, but as in many cases, it's so expensive (and risky) to go to court, the insurance company might prefer to write a check to put the fire out before it spreads.

You mean the insurance company writes a check from an account financed by someone other then themselves. :D

Finally! Someone who understands what we poor suffering sports officials go through. :D

MTD, Sr.

Though I think that he could have put it a little more concisely!

Personally, I feel that "]"Хайдар Галяутдинов вернул обсуждение в мирное русло: «Здесь нападения нет, мы все в середине». В итоге решили не рубить с плеча, но и не допустить, чтобы вопрос был решен без участия города. Известно, что министерство образования РФ (учредитель ИНЭКА) решения о «слиянии» еще не приняло. Его должна выработать рабочая группа в составе представителей республиканского и федерального министерств, «КАМАЗа», КГТУ и ИНЭКА. Депутаты решили добиться включения в эту группу и представителей из своих рядов," says all that really needs to be said.

Scott:

I see your point.

MTD, Sr.

Reported.

How did you report it? I couldn't even read it!