Skip to main content

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - An Oklahoma man who was seriously injured by a line drive during a 2006 high school baseball game isn't entitled to a nearly $1 million award from the manufacturer of the bat used to hit the ball, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
 
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by MyTime:

You need to read up on that case before commenting on it. To be ignorant of what it actually is, and trying to use it to advance your argument is foolish. I am surprised that so many people still misquote it with as many documentaries and papers/commentaries written on it. Here's a good place for you to start - http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/ or

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Was just about to post the same, though maybe not quite so angrily!  PA2016BSD - I shared your opinion about the McDonalds coffee case until I saw the above documentary a couple of years back.  MyTime is correct, it's a good reference point to eject from your vernacular moving forward. Turns out McDonalds was entirely at fault... It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit at all. Don't feel bad, McDonalds did a great job smearing the plaintiff and the facts.

 

Still... The Seinfeld episode that touches on this is funny nonetheless.

All the bat co. has been purposely making hotter and hotter bats with little regards to safety and circumventing BESR and BBF rules, so finally BBCOR came out. (and you have to wonder why BBCOR came out because of too many home runs or liability). Im not saying I side with the player, but the bat co is all about profit not about safety.

MyTime and Soylent Green - thanks for the info on this case. Yes I was a bit ignorant to the overall circumstances. As I strive to use common sense as a guide my point was mainly that people need to stop blaming others when things with inherent risk go wrong as you pointed out was not the case here. As shown with these cases the corporation were negligent but is not always the case. Thanks for the info.

I tried to google some more facts on this case, but cannot find much. I still don't understand how the judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor in the first place, unless if they somehow discovered through testing that the bat in question was abnormal and more dangerous. That does not seem to have happened, as the decision was overturned. The new judgment seems reasonable. Our little kids all wear facemasks at pitcher (up until 8 years old); wouldn't be surprised if they become more widespread with a few more of these cases.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit?  My  guess is that the parents/minor recovered $0.  People can sue for any  reason or no reason.  All they  need is money for the filing fee. 
 
Originally Posted by Will:

Here is one for everybody. Several years ago a kid made an all league team and was playing the outfield and he missed a fly ball and broke his nose. The parents sued the coaches because he never played the outfield before and had not been given instruction. 

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×