Jury finds against aluminum bat maker

quote:

By statistics the alledged danger is theory.

Backed up by experimentation and the laws of physics. That makes it reality. I guess the jury agreed with me on that.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

quote:

By statistics the alledged danger is theory.

Backed up by experimentation and the laws of physics. That makes it reality. I guess the jury agreed with me on that.

And OJ didn't kill his wife! Lawyers attempt to get the most ignorant people possible in a jury. I'll guess there will be a request to have the appeal heard in a different state so Louisville Slugger won't get homered in the decision. The reason this hearing was held in state was due to the distributor being named in the suit. I'm guessing the decision was an anti-business, anti-deep pockets, emotional decision.

When you take how many pitches are thrown in baseball over the course of the year and one death from a metal bat in six years, there is not a statistical danger. Every day life is more dangerous. The pitcher is in far more danger being transported to and from the game.

I think that if you ask most HS kids, many will say they would rather play with wood bats. Sorry no scientific evidence to support that statement, just the feeling I get from watching kids play

quote:

Thanks for all the links and reported stats. But really does anyone need stats to see the difference? If you have ever watched wood bat games and metal bats games and you can not tell the difference then there is nothing that anyone can tell you thats going to matter.

Would someone like to post the reasons some parents are against getting rid of metal bats?

Coach May...I would also like to hear why? There is a conference of a local Legion team that has gone to wood bats. They did this a few years ago hoping other confernece s would do the same. However none of the other conferences followed. So the kids in this confernece play their games with wood bats and then they go into the playoff and switch to metal bats.

I have seen a few of these games and Coach May you are right if you can't see the differnce then you just can't be convinced.

I undertand that that the stats may show that metal bats have not casued anymore harm than wood bats...guess the question I have if you trust your eyes and believe there is big difference between wood and metal.....could it just be a matter of time before the stats prove it out?

As the kids continue to get stronger and bigger...will the stats change?

Maybe we shoud start another thread, do not want to hi jack this one...but I would like to hear people's POV on Coach May's question " What the reasons Parents have for not getting rid of metal bats?"

.

"The pitcher is in far more danger being transported to and from the game."

Yes that is quite true RJM. Why? Because most all cars are metal!

And because of that I advocate that all pitchers be driven to their game in this...









What's the worst thing that could happen ...a tush full of slivers? Getting the shakes? Shingles perhaps?


Talk about economic stimulus! You can place your lumber orders right here with me.




.

now THAT'S a "woody" !


Dad43, most parents don't "get it!"
My take? See pg 4: some parents like the "ping"..
others, the edge Little Johnny's "rocket launcher" has over Big Billies...

Now you can see why it was trial by jury. The company didn't have a chance.
I like RJM don't think the stats warrant the decision.
We both prefer wood bats but that has nothing to do with the level of risk. I always bought my son a wood bat every year. The local organizations wouldn't let him use it. He did play wood bat games from 16U on but he only pitched . I taught him to square up after release, stay low for a second or two and eyes focused on the plate. A come backer is easier to react to and to defend against. He was never hit. This is why I have always come out against pitchers turning sideways after release You open up yourself to being in an indefensible position.
Do you honestly believe that player and parent don't know the risk ?

quote:

And OJ didn't kill his wife! Lawyers attempt to get the most ignorant people possible in a jury.

You don't want people to get 'personal' in their posts...yet you try to link my comments to the OJ jury? And you want to disparage every lawyer and juror with no other knowledge about this case? Or did you mean all lawyers and all jurors with that comment?

You are the one who wants to rely on a meaningless statistical pool in the face of overwhelming evidence of the scientific kind to exonerate a company that knew the dangers...are you just arguing to argue???? Who's resembling the OJ jury here?

Ridiculous!

I'll stick with the laws of physics, which needs no jury and therefore satisfy your anti-jury bias.

Not sure why you guys are getting so up in the air about this case.
To me juries often make bad decisions. They are often influenced by emotion and their decisions are not based on good law. OJ case is an example.
I don't think the decision is a good one based on good law.

quote:

Not having read the facts I find it hard to see this decision holding up.

BHD, has anything changed since this earlier post.
Don't let the facts and the law get in the way of your opinions. Climb right up there and slam the jury, when you don't have any idea on the make up and composition of the jury.
Was this jury so full of emotion and lack of skills and intelligence when they made the finding the product was not defective, a determination that favored H&B?

RJM, it is not unusual in many industries for the specifications to be designed by the manufacturer, not the end purchaser. I've had clients assist in writing RFP"s (Requests For Proposals), the RFP is issued, then they submit a proposal...for the particular item they already designed. It makes it pretty easy to be the low bidder, no?

It happens all the time...

The NCAA could tell the bat manufacturers that they require a metal bat to have the same BESR as a wooden bat, using a 88 mph pitch, and an 88 mph swing, far more realistic than the existing standards...but all of those bats on the shelves and in the warehouse awaiting shipment by Nike, H & B, Louisville Slugger, Rawlings, etc. would become worthless.

All it takes is some guts and a true desire for a safer game on the part of the NCAA. Accidents will still happen, but the risks decrease dramatically.

quote:

it is not unusual in many industries for the specifications to be designed by the manufacturer, not the end purchaser. I've had clients assist in writing RFP"s (Requests For Proposals), the RFP is issued, then they submit a proposal...for the particular item they already designed.

My point is the bats pass a test used by the baseball powers that be to determine if the bat passes the acceptible safety test. To me, that makes the baseball powers more culpable than the manufacturers.

But in this particular case I don't believe for a second a player gets to high school level ball without the player and parents understanding the inherent risks of the game and especially pitching or playing the corners.

I don't disagree that the baseball powers that be, in this case, the NCAA, bear significant culpability. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, right?

I have no problem with the inherent risks of the game; both of my sons pitched at the high school level although thankfully have played positions in college. But I don't think the "inherent risks" (i.e., the normal risks) should include a baseball coming back at them from 60 feet away going 120 mph or more, especially when pitchers, unlike third basemen, don't start out in a defensive stance.


I'm not a physics kind of guy, but in the HBO special, they stated that it is physically impossible for ANY human being to avoid a projectile coming that fast from 60 feet away. Even the quickest of the quick simply don't move that quickly.


But I do lay considerable blame at the feet of the NCAA-of course, anyone who has been around a while knows the NCAA is not a great friend to the student-athletes on many issues.

quote:

The NCAA could tell the bat manufacturers that they require a metal bat to have the same BESR as a wooden bat, using a 88 mph pitch, and an 88 mph swing, far more realistic than the existing standards...but all of those bats on the shelves and in the warehouse awaiting shipment by Nike, H & B, Louisville Slugger, Rawlings, etc. would become worthless.

Inventory shouldn't be used as an excuse. All they need to do is say 'As of this date, (Insert reasonable date here), all bats must meet this new requirement'.

They can choose to grandfather everything else or place another date where 'old' bats can't be used (what a boon there, planned obsolescence!)

Happens all the time to us. Countries put all sorts of restrictions and requirements to import and export product. Ever hear of RoHS (reduction of hazardous substances)? We literally had to restructure our entire supply chain...Bat manufacturers would have to redesign the new 2011 model, not just change the color....

quote:

the finding the product was not defective, a determination that favored H&B?

If the product was faulty or a defense was mounted on that basis it would surprise me. It would surprise me because the suit was about proper warning. If the batter was faulty it would require completely different burden of proof. That would be in the interest of the Plaintiff not the Defendants. They would have to prove that the bats were known to have this problem and disregarded the warning that a faulty bat could result in death. That would be more in line with the pinto case where GM was shown to know the problem based on data. They chose to ignore the duty to warn. No one drove a Pinto expecting to have the gas tank blow up. Several cases showed it was a grave risk and the internal memo showed GM chose to ignore their duty.
This case has wider ramifications because ,as RJM said there is no evidence that proves serious injury, over and above the use of wood bats exists. Yes the ball comes off the bat a bit quicker but you can be just as injured by wood bats. Not only does this impact BB but all sports and every day life. The requirement to warn about possible death in everything we do has just been opened up to the point of ridiculous.
It's really not just about metal bats. It is about what required to warn the public about dangers when there is no clear evidence that the warning is required. I suggest that the wood bat people should also start warning as well. maybe all games and practices should require waivers like MLB does at their tryouts. Just an added point. You can't rely on warnings if there is provable negligence.
When do HS sports pack it is due to outrageous insurance costs ?

I know we don't want to let "facts" about this particular lawsuit and verdict get in the way of your continued speculation, but here are a few:

"After 12 hours of deliberation, a jury sided with the parents of former Miles City American Legion baseball pitcher Brandon Patch in a civil suit over the player's death during a 2003 game in Helena.

Aluminum bat maker Hillerich & Bradsby Co. failed to provide adequate warning as to the dangers of the bat used by a Helena Senators player during the game, at least eight of the 12 Lewis and Clark County jurors agreed Wednesday.


In the verdict read in District Judge Kathy Seeley's courtroom, the jurors found the company, which makes Louisville Slugger bats, liable for failing to warn users of the danger of its aluminum bats and that this failure caused the accident that killed 18-year-old Patch.

A third decision was that the bat was not defective. Attorneys representing Debbie Patch argued during the week-long trial that the bat used on July 25, 2003, was defective because it was more dangerous than the average user would expect."

You are confusing what are facts. Facts are the things that caused the jurors to reach their conclusions which you so ably provided.
Facts are things like reported deaths due to aluminum bats. Facts are things that show they disregarded those facts that showed death was a likely out come of using aluminum bats over and above wood.
I can certainly read their conclusions which . This case is more like the hot coffee case at McDonalds. The award in that case was greatly reduced on appeal. Blame was spread around in that case as well.
The company doesn't even pay the award. It is their insurance provider but the implications create a broader liability through every aspect of your lives.

quote:

You are confusing what are facts. Facts are the things that caused the jurors to reach their conclusions which you so ably provided.

Silly me confusing the facts. You had posted you would be "surprised" if "the product was faulty or a defense was mounted at that basis."
So, I provided you the "facts" about the verdicts and they indeed show that while you were "surprised," you "surprise is/was misplaced and wrong.
Such a theory was advanced by the plaintiff family, denied by H&B, and decided in favor of H&B.
Now you say there are other "facts." By facts, I trust you mean "evidence."
How about these:
"Baseballs hit with aluminum bats, such as the one used in that American Legion game, only give pitchers milliseconds to respond in a defensive stance, the plaintiffs said. Plaintiff's attorney Joe White said the average time needed by a pitcher to defend a batted ball is 400 milliseconds. Patch had 378 milliseconds to respond, he said."

Yes silly you.
The Plaintiff is better off arguing it performed as it was designed to do.
Arguing that it was defective would set up a whole different burden of proof.

quote:

The Plaintiff is better off arguing it performed as it was designed to do.
Arguing that it was defective would set up a whole different burden of proof.

Now you have become an expert on tort law in the state of Montana?
BHD, your posts are a never ending source of amazement.
But, assuming for the moment your distinction on a "whole different burden of proof" is correct, would that not mean that "ignorant," "hometown," "emotional" jury panel was able to understand all these legal nuances and come to a decision in accordance with the evidence offered in the trial?
How else could they correctly decide the bat was not defective but correctly decide on the failure to warn theory.
Oh, that is right...they had coffee at McDonalds and you know a guy.

Yes I am familiar with the law of Torts. You would be surprised that the Torts are similar in Britain Canada and the USA.
I think you need to take a cold shower again.

I'm confused as to why those who allowed the metal bats to be used were not sued. Louisville is not the only metal bat manufacturer. It could have been any bat company. They just sell bats to those who play by the rules. Someone else actually makes the rules as to which bats are allowed.

As a wood bat promoter, I would think suing the league, team, organization involved would do more good. $850,000 would mean more to them. It amounts to less than 2,000 bats to Louisville and even $850,000 is not much. Maybe if this happens in a college game, it will be the NCAA who gets sued. They have lots of money!

Saying that the warning makes everything right... I don't understand. Do they sue the gun manufacturer when there is an accident?

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Yes I am familiar with the law of Torts.

I could have sworn I asked about your knowledge of the Tort law used in Montana, as it applied to this case.
From your posts, I guess its all the same, unless its different.
Boy, if the jury decides against H&B on the punitive damage phase of the trial, Julie is going to need more bandwidth.

PG you are right. Are the others next ? What part do the parents and player play in this as well ? I believe the hot coffee case apportioned about 20% blame to the lady ho was burned after a sustantial reduction .

Infield the law of Torts is mostly based on case law. The logic is very simple. The case law in Montana and other state draws on the knowledge and cases decided in Britain Canada and the USA. Winteringham VS Ray happened down the street from where I grew up. I knew them both very well. Winteringham was bitten by Rays dog. Winteringham died as a result of a contaminated anti tetanus shot. The estate successfully sued Ray for a large sum. It was paid by his insurance provider. I read that case while studying at the Inns in London England. It was used in Tort cases as a precedent for the 3 countries I mentioned and all common wealth countries.. Even in Montana.
End of argument for me !

Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations.[1] A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury. Torts cover intentional acts and accidents (negligent acts). In contrast to criminal law (in which the offense is against the State and the State is the plaintiff), in tort law, the offense is against a person and that person is the plaintiff.

For instance, Alice throws a ball and accidentally hits Brenda in the eye. Brenda may sue Alice for losses occasioned by the accident (e.g., costs of medical treatment, lost income during time off work, and pain and suffering). Whether or not Brenda wins her suit depends on if she can prove Alice engaged in tortious conduct. Here, Brenda would attempt to prove Alice had a duty and failed to exercise the standard of care which a reasonable person would render in throwing the ball. (This may also serve as a suitable example of frivolous litigation.)

One of the main topics of the substance of tort law is determining the standard of care—a legal phrase that means distinguishing between when conduct is or is not tortious. Put another way, the big issue is whether a person suffers the loss from his own injury, or whether it gets transferred to someone else.

Returning to the example above, if Alice threw the ball at Brenda purposely, Brenda could sue for the intentional tort of battery (and the action might also, separately, be a crime against the State). If it was an accident, Brenda must prove negligence. To do this, Brenda must show that her injury was reasonably foreseeable, that Alice owed Brenda a duty of care not to hit her with the ball, and that Alice failed to meet the standard of care required.

In much of the western world, the touchstone of tort liability is negligence. If the injured party cannot prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted with negligence, at the very least, tort law will not compensate them. Tort law also recognizes intentional torts and strict liability, which apply to defendants who engage in certain actions.

In tort law, injury is defined broadly. Injury does not just mean a physical injury, such as where Brenda was struck by a ball. Injuries in tort law reflect any invasion of any number of individual interests. This includes interests recognized in other areas of law, such as property rights. Actions for nuisance and trespass to land can arise from interfering with rights in real property. Conversion and trespass to chattels can protect interference with movable property. Interests in prospective economic advantages from contracts can also be injured and become the subject of tort actions. A number of situations caused by parties in a contractual relationship may nevertheless be tort rather than contract claims, such as breach of fiduciary duty.

Tort law may also be used to compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.[2] The law of torts can be categorised as part of the law of obligations, but unlike voluntarily assumed obligations (such as those of contract, or trust), the duties imposed by the law of torts apply to all those subject to the relevant jurisdiction. To behave in 'tortious' manner is to harm another's body, property, or legal rights, or possibly, to breach a duty owed under statute. One who commits a tortious act is called a tortfeasor.[3] Torts is one of the American Bar Association mandatory first year law school courses

BHD,
Can you please send Julie a check this month?
She has to pay for this site and its usage, including stuff like you just cut and pasted...after you posted "End of Argument."

A young man lost his life playing a game. The parents lost their child. Can you imagine?

We lost a true friend to a batted ball from an L screen off a metal bat.

Ask yourself this question. From your experience do more balls come off metal bats really hot than they do from wood bats?

If you say no you are either - and idiot.
In denial. Have never seen a game played with metal or wood.
Or simply blind. Maybe all of the above.

You can quote all the stats you want to quote. Do they keep stats of all the players hit in cages , in practice , during bp? Do they count all the injuries that do not end in death? I dont know. I do know that it is simply a miracle that more kids are not serious hurt than they are or have been with metal bats. It is scary to throw to some kids in a cage or on the field when they are swinging a metal bat.

Patches parents have made it clear their goal is to save someone else from the pain they are dealing with. And I hope they are successful. You have to start somewhere. This is a step in the right direction.

Coach no one is arguing that metal is more dangerous than wood.
The damages are probably not that big even if they hit them with 4 times that amount.
Don't you think that pushing for a ban is the better approach if they are interested in saving other ball players from getting hurt.
Will colleges etc stop using metal tomorrow based on this case, will kids and Parents stop playing with metal ?

I have no idea BHD I really dont. I remember in my early years in Law Enforcement that DUI was treated like alot of other traffic offenses. The first offense was reduced to careless and reckless driving. The second offense was a slap on the wrist. A person would have to have multiple offenses of DUI before it was taken seriously. Then something happened. It was call MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

Sitting in the court room and monitoring cases , putting pressure on politicians and law makers. Bringing attention to the lives lost and destroyed by those that chose to destroy lives. Suddenly things began to change. It took people taking a stand and not sitting back and allowing things to just be what they were.

The same thing is going to have to happen with this situation. Cases such as this are a starting point imo. How many young kids have to die before something changes? Is there an acceptable number we are willing to risk? Evidently there is.

Yes the problem with drinking is terrible. We see accidents every day due to drunk drivers. My feeling is that too many people who make the laws and also important people also drink and drive. They are afraid to pass laws that will lock themselves up.
There was an accident in TO a few days ago. The drunk was doing 85mph in a 30 zone driving a BMW. He hit and cut a Honda mini van in two and killed 3 women in the van. He only had a few scratches.
Makes me sick.

The problem with this case is it Set a precedent which will have wide ramifications in our lives.

Uh, I think you missed the coach's point.

Well I think he thinks banning metal bats will be a long hard journey and that organizations may not heed the law just like the drinking driving laws.

Ontario just banned the use of handheld devices by drivers while driving. That includes cell phones and things like Ipods. Talking on a cell while driving can only be done with hands free devices. The Ontario gov provided statistical facts and there was very little opposition to it. No one sued the cell phone companies .

I wonder why only the manufacturer was named in the suit. You get a few school districts named in this type of suit and you'll see more wood bats than you shake a wood bat at.

While the debate over wood or metal will be ongoing. I know this, you can't roll a wood bat. IMO if a player was injured by a ball, from a bat that has been rolled. It should be a crimainal offense.

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
I wonder why only the manufacturer was named in the suit. You get a few school districts named in this type of suit and you'll see more wood bats than you shake a wood bat at.

While the debate over wood or metal will be ongoing. I know this, you can't roll a wood bat. IMO if a player was injured by a bat, that has been rolled. It should be a crimainal offense.

Others may have settled before the trial...

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
A young man lost his life playing a game. The parents lost their child. Can you imagine?

We lost a true friend to a batted ball from an L screen off a metal bat.

Ask yourself this question. From your experience do more balls come off metal bats really hot than they do from wood bats?

If you say no you are either - and idiot.
In denial. Have never seen a game played with metal or wood.
Or simply blind. Maybe all of the above.

You can quote all the stats you want to quote. Do they keep stats of all the players hit in cages , in practice , during bp? Do they count all the injuries that do not end in death? I dont know. I do know that it is simply a miracle that more kids are not serious hurt than they are or have been with metal bats. It is scary to throw to some kids in a cage or on the field when they are swinging a metal bat.

Patches parents have made it clear their goal is to save someone else from the pain they are dealing with. And I hope they are successful. You have to start somewhere. This is a step in the right direction.

Coach May,
AMEN & AMEN!!
That is precisely the point! A young man lost his life playing baseball.
Get Rid of metal bats! It's just so simple!

Yes they should be banned. I can't think of a good reason to use them.

To me this is a separate issue from the case.
I understand that the case may be appealed. I am sure that it should be.

Here is an older study on metal VS wood.


http://paws.kettering.edu/~dru...-new/ban-safety.html

quote:

I would think suing the league, team, organization involved would do more good. $850,000 would mean more to them. It amounts to less than 2,000 bats to Louisville and even $850,000 is not much. Maybe if this happens in a college game, it will be the NCAA who gets sued. They have lots of money!

People sue where there are deep pockets. American Legion baseball probably doesn't have 850K to take from them. But your point is one I made somewhere in this thread. Those who sanction the bats should be the most responsible. ASA softball has banned manufacturer's bats they think have too much pop.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
A young man lost his life playing a game. The parents lost their child. Can you imagine?

We lost a true friend to a batted ball from an L screen off a metal bat.

Ask yourself this question. From your experience do more balls come off metal bats really hot than they do from wood bats?

If you say no you are either - and idiot.
In denial. Have never seen a game played with metal or wood.
Or simply blind. Maybe all of the above.

You can quote all the stats you want to quote. Do they keep stats of all the players hit in cages , in practice , during bp? Do they count all the injuries that do not end in death? I dont know. I do know that it is simply a miracle that more kids are not serious hurt than they are or have been with metal bats. It is scary to throw to some kids in a cage or on the field when they are swinging a metal bat.

Patches parents have made it clear their goal is to save someone else from the pain they are dealing with. And I hope they are successful. You have to start somewhere. This is a step in the right direction.

I agree with all your conjecture and assumptions. But the reality is with all the baseball played, only three pitchers have been killed by batted balls. Two were with wood bats. Coincidence? Probably. But if there's only one death from a batted ball off a metal bat, AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE there isn't evidence the kid was in danger.