[SamAdams76]

No, it would be foolish for the Red Sox to offer a settlement. Their policy of assuming no liability for balls and bats entering the stands is pretty clear and spelled out not only on back of ticket but through pre-game announcements. To settle on this would cause many others to come out of woodwork who have been struck in years past. And while few were as serious as this case, there have been many.

Unfortunately, what might come of this is that MLB will be forced to rig up additional protective netting around the ballpark, making it tougher to see the game from the good seats. I'm old enough to remember when the netting behind home plate was minimal - you really had to pay attention then and many people actually brought gloves to games. Not to collect a souvenir or to get it autographed - but to protect themselves!

[Dr. Sivana]

Well, you are right about the baseball team winning these cases. I thought the fact that it was a broken bat and not a ball could make a difference, but this nice little white paper on the topic (baseball and hockey) spells out the recent history quite nicely.

https://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/05/05-Augustine.pdf

[RayChuang88]

Like it or not, MLB was very lucky the woman wasn't killed by that bat fragment that hit her. But I do think MLB may have to impose much larger netting in all ballparks (the same as they do at Japanese professional baseball parks) because one of these days, a foul ball going into the stands at over 80 mph or a sharp fragment of a broken bat going into the stands at over 50 mph will hit someone with tragic results.

Remember, the NHL had to put in netting around the ends of the rink after a fan was killed by the impact of a hockey puck at a Columbus Blue Jackets home game in 2002.

[Moonman62]

I have my doubts about how well that indemnity statement would hold up in court.