Posted on 07/12/2008 10:25:28 AM PDT by prolifefirst
The foul ball seemed to come straight toward them, faster than Peter DiAngi has ever seen a baseball move. The frozen rope off Cubs pitcher Ted Lilly's bat in the bottom of the second inning was a few feet away when DiAngi saw it, much too late. He never saw it hit Dominic's head, but can't erase the image of the boy falling limp.
"It was something I'll never forget, the speed of that ball coming in and the face of my son looking up," Peter DiAngi said Friday. Adrenaline jolted the 44-year-old Frankfort man, thinking "this is bad." He scooped him up and ran, yelling, not knowing if the boy was breathing, blowing air into his mouth anyway.
Boy hit by foul ball at Wrigley Video Dominic was in serious condition and still unconscious Friday in Children's Memorial Hospital, where he is recovering from a fractured skull and swelling around his brain. His doctors and family expect him to live, and are thinking now about how his neurological functioning will fare when he comes around.
"We hope he'll make a speedy recovery, and look forward to welcoming him back to Wrigley Field as soon as he's ready," said Cubs spokesman Peter Chase. Lilly, who says he didn't see the foul ball hit the boy, seemed visibly shaken when told about it Thursday.
"We're past the scary life-and-death part," DiAngi said Friday, though he hasn't relaxed yet. "We have to see his reactions. We want to make sure he can focus."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
If they decide to sue, they are low life scum.
Dont it state on the ticket that the team is not liable for injuries?
They can try, and they might find some Edwards type ambulance chaser to do it, but I doubt they would win.
As a life-long Cub fan, I hope and trust they will take care of this boy.
Tort reform now!
I think it’s pretty clearly an assumed risk of attending a a baseball game.
No they are NOT “low life scum” if they decide to sue. That’s a pretty hateful thing to say about someone’s who’s child is laying in a coma.
In any event, it’s called assumed risk and I doubt they could find an attorney to take the case. Suing over being hit by a foul ball was settled many years ago and it pretty much cannot be done.
Sorry, but sitting in the stands, especially close to the action, is an assumed risk.
I wonder how many Cub fans were thinking “If only that ball had hit Steve Bartman.”
Wanna bet?
Cruel, but true!
The Cubs will settle this out of court. The Columbus Blue Jackets NHL hockey team had a similar case involving a teenage girl who was hit by a deflected puck and later died. Although it clearly says on the ticket that you assume any risk the lawsuits followed. I expect it will happen in this case, too.
Prayers for the lad; may he recover fully.
But a lawsuit? No way. You take on the risk when you buy a seat where there is a likelihood of being hit by a foul ball. How many pople are injured in ballpark scrambles for foul balls or home runs? Should they get to sue as well?
That said, it would be good public relations for the team to offer help.
Let’s hope soon we’ll see the kid singing “Take Me Out to The Ballgame” during the 7th Inning Stretch at Wrigley.
Little boys (and grown big boys) used to bring their mitts in hope of catching balls. Do they not do that any more? Prayer for the injured one.
I didn’t see an mention of lawsuit in the article...
For crying out loud, can we simply just pray for healing of this little boy before we jump into litigation anticipation?
Possible points for argument for lawsuit:
1) The Cubs redid the dugouts at Wrigley to better protect the players, but not the fans that sit nearby.
2) The league and Union isn’t serious about policing the chemical enhancement of their players and consequently the ball comes off the bat unnaturally fast.
3) The chemical enhancement of players indicates that baseball values dollars more than the safety of their players, and if they don’t value their multi-million dollar personnel how much less do they value the fans?
4) Despite frequent events indicating that the new Maple bats are dangerous the league and Player Union have not acted in order to make money over safety, and indication of their concern for safety.
How can a 7-yr-old child be said to have assumed that risk? Is he old enough, competent enough, to know what he was doing? How about a 1-yr-old baby that got bonked on the head by a foul ball?
I don’t understand the law, just asking.
Reasons for attorney to take case:
1) Very deep pockets.
2) Very sympathetic victim.
3) Judges ignore prescedent and law all the time. You just need the right judge.
4) Great publicity.
But can a 7 year old legally assume the risk?
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.