even though he really had nothing to do with inventing baseball. but sueing his estate makes as much sense as what they are doing.
Posted on 05/17/2008 10:20:12 PM PDT by MissouriConservative
As a kid...we used only wooden bats. I sat there once...barely 30 feet from the batter when he swung and the bat broke. The broke end came my direction and fell around five feet from me. I sat there and thought...man, it’d be great to have steel bats that wouldn’t break. Maybe I was wrong though.
More interesting data
Studies in the American Sports Medicine Journal indicate a pitcher's ability to react to a ball hit from 60 feet, 6 1/2 inches away (the major league regulation distance) stops after 155 km/h. A 2002 report for the Journal for the American College of Sports Medicine found 37 per cent of balls hit by an aluminum bat reached 160 km/h, while just 2 per cent hit with a wooden bat did.
And Domalewski, like Green, was pitching from just 45 feet away.
Stephen Keener, president and CEO of Little League, recently told USA Today that the elimination of metal bats would lead to a "dramatic decline" in enrolment at the lower levels of the game.
"Non-wood bats spread the weight (of the ball) out across the bat," Keener said. "It's easier to handle, to swing and, for a lot of kids, to have a greater success playing the game."
Since the introduction of the metal bat in 1971, it has been remodelled many times to improve performance. The steady push to make bats more powerful prompted Jack MacKay to quit his job as a metal bat designer for Louisville Slugger in 1989.
"This is the kind of technology you ought to be throwing at bin Laden, not some baseball pitcher," MacKay told The Sporting News in 2002. "We've overengineered it. It's the worst thing I ever did. Aluminum bats and wood bats are not even in the same ballpark."
You can beat someone up with practically any kind of baseball bat.
No. You cant.
even though he really had nothing to do with inventing baseball. but sueing his estate makes as much sense as what they are doing.
This is just a sad story all around.
this kid should be suing the parents for allowing the kid to play in a inherently dangerous sport...of course the kids is not of legal age - he needs to have his parents appointed guardians ad litum in the lawsuit.... therefore - the parents will be suing themselves!!!
there is case law on such incidences in NJ ....as lawyers will do anything to bring an action and have insurance companies pay the bills in a suit....
of course - the attornies all insist they are only suing for the good of the injured party...although...the ones that always benefit most are the shysters in the $1,000 suits!!!
It was necessary to eliminate the concept of fault because if that century-old principle had been adhered to, the risk could not be as effectively spread. Social engineering has its price.It became necessary only to show that some "defect" in the product-not necessarily caused by negligence-led to the injury.
The justices achieved their social policy goals, they have spread the risk throughout society. So baseball bats, whether metal or wood, cost more. Insurance for little league teams costs more. Insurance for public playgrounds where these games are played costs more. Insurance for the store that sells the bats to the teams costs more. And on it goes. The problem is it goes on and on because whole new industries have been created as a result of this judicial do -goodism. Whole new careers for lawyers to prosecute and defend these cases and clerks in insurance companies to manage them. New fields for actuaries to assess the risks and provide conditions for insurance coverage. It was necessary to eliminate the concept of fault because if that century-old principle had been adhered to, the risk could not be as effectively spread. Social engineering has its price.
One more price for this state of affairs is that the lawyers representing this poor child who has no doubt been tragically injured, are doing precisely what has been envisioned for them to do: looking for the deep pockets. Those pockets are supposed to be insured.
So we see kids playing baseball becoming more expensive and regulations about how and where it's played becoming more and more onerous and absurd.
Sadly the parents should loose custody for endangering the child.
I don't know if you are wrong or not. Sometime in the next couple weeks MLB is having a meeting to discuss the danger of the bats they are now using (wood). They have changed the wood they use and they are breaking often. Has become a real hazard, and pretty dangerous.
You think this is the bat’s fault. Explain.
The 2002 study was done before the “Bat Exit Speed Ratio” (BESR) rule went into effect:
Since 2003, all bats are required to meet the “Bat Exit Speed Ratio” (BESR) performance limitation, which ensures that aluminum bats do not hit the ball any harder than the best wood bats.- Youth Committee of USA Baseball
So this kid got a line shot by an aluminum bat that was degraded to perform as bad as a wooden bat. Steven wasn't quick enough to avoid a line drive regardless of which kind of bat hit it.
It's just a guess, but something tells me Steve did a 'Roger-the-Rocket' pose and didn't get out of his follow-thru fast enough to make the switch to a fielder. That's why pitchers have gloves and cups --to be fielders.
Now, who or what will we blame when it is a wooden bat that makes the hit? Sue the ball manufacturer for selling a dangerous projectile?
Hey, I got an idea: It's that nasty ball that caused the damage --Maybe we should replace the cork and yarn inside the ball with foam rubber!
No more bloody noses and missing teeth from bad hops, no more cups for the the in-field, no gloves needed for anybody except maybe the catcher and 1st baseman ...
I mean that'll really make the game safe for the kiddos ... wouldn't it?
However I suspect that the plaintiffs lawyer will look for some "defect" or will contrive an argument that there was a "failure to warn" of the greater acceleration of a ball off the metal bat or some such thing. He will find an expert who will so testify, no matter how implausibly, and the decision then goes to the jury which, being human-and we want them to be human-might very well render a verdict out of sympathy for the pathetically injured child.
Most of the posts on this thread have missed the whole point, if you want to spread the risk, there are a lot of hidden costs to pay. If you do not want to spread the risk , then horribly injured children will necessarily go uncompensated. My post is in favor of neither one. I just wish that those who comment would grapple with the real issue.
We need tort reform, but not limits on awards. We need to change to a loser pays system. If someone sues and loses, they pay the defendant’s legal fees including court and filing fees, and lawyers’ bill. As it is now it is often cheaper to settle a frivolous suit like this than to fight and win.
didn’t see your post when I posted mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.