The other side of the sword ... Louisville Slugger

Since I have no knowledge of the basis of the wood bat suit, I have no comment. Point us to a reliable article.

As for the Louisville Slugger comment, he/she may be right, he/she may be wrong. But it sounds like a lot of bloviating to me at this point in time. For now, it has no relevance to my thoughts on this.

It came from the horse's mouth on another board. He's a regular. His last name begins with H as in Hillerich. He didn't reference an article. And I'm sure he has to be careful what he says publicly.

My point is metal or wood is a darned if you do, darned if you don't, situation. There are dangerous possibilties when a hard ball is hit by a hard bat. It's part of the risk of playing the game.

I hope Fielder' Cjoice doesn't mind me pasting his post here.

"In a "failure to warn" case ( referred to as a "warning defect case"), the family would have to prove that if a "proper warning" had been on the bat, the player or pitcher in this case would have not played the game or otherwise would have changed his conduct such that the injury would have been avoided. I can't imagine any credible testimony (one that a jury would actually believe) in this case that would convince a jury that a player who has played baseball all his life would not play baseball if the bat had a warning on it or would have otherwise changed his conduct to avoid getting hit by the ball. Morever, there is an "assumption of risk" issue here as well as the legal defense that a product manufacturer does not have to warn about "obvious dangers or risks". this is a tragic and heart - breaking death no doubt, but as a lawyer I can't for the life of me figure out how this case could ever turn out like it did. I am simply baffled by this jury verdict. What is really worrisome to me is the dreaded slippery slope. now, not only are bat manufacturers possibly at risk, but so are the retail stores who sell the bats and the leagues who allow players to use aluminum bats for league play. I, for one, would strongly suggest an appeal. I say this not because i believe the death of the young man was not tragic because it is very tragic, but because this verdict turns the law on its head. A jury cannot simply ignore the law to reach a result the jury wants to "feel good about", no matter how tragic the facts."

Just because there's a lawsuit, doesn't mean it has any merit.

Just because its wood, doesn't mean there's no liability either...could be a faulty production process or design.

Just because its based on a wood bat (if true), doesn't mean atomic metal bats aren't more dangerous.

Bottom line, you and I don't know as of now. Could all be a bunch of hooey...or it could be that Mr. "H." is trying to deflect responsibility, influence a prospective jury pool and/or scare a bunch of baseball fans into action against the legal system to protect profits?

1) It's scheduled for court.

2) Wood bats tend to be made from a repetitive mold. The process has been essentially the same for 125 years. There aren't revolutionary new models like metal.

3) Metal is irrelevant to the case. It's a wood bat case.

4) Historically when a business' cost of doing business increases (taxes and liability insurance included) they pass it on to the consumer to protect existing profits.

The point is if metal and wood bats are considered a major liability what happens to the game? If the cost of playing the game is driven up even more kids could be driven from participating on travel and showcase teams. Baseball could become a country club sport. Some argue the transition has already started.

There is a possible case brewing here in Ontario. A high level player on the Kitchener Rangers of the OHA was checked into the boards hard. His helmet came off and he suffered serious injury and remains in a coma.
Talk is that the clasp on the helmet becomes lose over time.

quote:

Talk is that the clasp on the helmet becomes loose over time.

Wouldn't that be wear and tear and the responsibility of the customer/user to check periodically?

Maybe it will require a prominent warning sticker now ? Clasp may be worn down over time etc/ Who knows where it will end ?

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Maybe it will require a prominent warning sticker now ? Clasp may be worn down over time etc/ Who knows where it will end ?

What has ended is common sense. The lack of it detracts from legitimate legal situations.

It makes sense to me if I'm going to be mogul bashing in the winter I need to have my bindings checked by an expert before the start of each ski season.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
1) It's scheduled for court.

2) Wood bats tend to be made from a repetitive mold. The process has been essentially the same for 125 years. There aren't revolutionary new models like metal.

3) Metal is irrelevant to the case. It's a wood bat case.

4) Historically when a business' cost of doing business increases (taxes and liability insurance included) they pass it on to the consumer to protect existing profits.

The point is if metal and wood bats are considered a major liability what happens to the game? If the cost of playing the game is driven up even more kids could be driven from participating on travel and showcase teams. Baseball could become a country club sport. Some argue the transition has already started.

The economics of it all will cause the manufacturers to adjust if they need too...for example maybe they'll stop making metal bats that are capable of inflicting more harm? Or wood bats that splinter too easily? Maybe it will be a good thing? The next car or airplane you get into...the next toy your children or grandchildren will play with...all safer in part due to processes like these.

How 'bout letting the legal, legislative and economic systems run their course and stop worrying so much about might happen because the owner of the company in question is crying that the sky if falling.

quote:

How 'bout letting the legal, legislative and economic systems run their course

The legal issue is far from over. A fact you fail to understand.

quote:

The legal issue is far from over. A fact you fail to understand.

Enlighten me oh wise one!

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:

quote:

How 'bout letting the legal, legislative and economic systems run their course

The legal issue is far from over. A fact you fail to understand.

Okay, now I really think Yogi is writing your stuff!.
justbb suggests letting the legal system run its course.
How could he "fail to understand" the legal issue is "far from over" when that is what he suggested should happen?

Read the quote I pasted from Fielders Choice (Attorney) above and considered your selves enlightened. At least consider your selves led to the water trough.

So, lets see here BHD...how is it again that you feel that I "fail to understand" that the legal issue is far from over?

Here is what I said (bold type to make sure you see it this time):

quote:

How 'bout letting the legal, legislative and economic systems run their course and stop worrying so much about might happen because the owner of the company in question is crying that the sky if falling.

Do you want to short-circuit the legal process? Do you want to nullify a jury decision presided over by a judge...based on things you read on the internet? Do you want to take the company owner's word for it about what happened and what it will mean?

Nah, I'd rather let the legal system run its course. It may not be perfect, but no one else has a better one.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:


4) Historically when a business' cost of doing business increases (taxes and liability insurance included) they pass it on to the consumer to protect existing profits.

Didn't the court in Montana rule that the bat company was at fault for failing to put a warning on the bat?

That shouldn't cost much.

I believe this is one of your many quotes.

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

YYYyyyyessss. You got a problem with physics? And again, how is it I "fail to understand" that the legal process is not over?????

quote:

Didn't the court in Montana rule that the bat company was at fault for failing to put a warning on the bat?

It isn't the cost of the warning sticker. They will cost maybe 50 cents so they will charge that to the customer at a buck or more. No big deal.
The insurance companies will reevaluate their risk and that ruling if not squashed on appeal, will open up a huge potential for risk. As pointed out by Fielder's Choice, the jury's decision is not based on law.

quote:

...the jury's decision is not based on law.

You know...you just amaze me. You don't practice law in Montana as far as I know. You don't know what was presented in this case as far as I know. You weren't in the courtroom as far as I know. You didn't hear the judge's instructions as far as I know. You weren't in the deliberation room as far as I know.

Yet you know the "jury's decision is not based on law."

Amazing, simply amazing.

I prefer to trust our jury system...yes, it makes mistakes sometimes, but there ain't nothin' better out there. If the bat manufacturer had nothing to worry about, they wouldn't be so worried.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:


4) Historically when a business' cost of doing business increases (taxes and liability insurance included) they pass it on to the consumer to protect existing profits.

Didn't the court in Montana rule that the bat company was at fault for failing to put a warning on the bat?

That shouldn't cost much.

The label isn't the major cost in consideration. Liability insurance is.

quote:

YYYyyyyessss. You got a problem with physics? And again, how is it I "fail to understand" that the legal process is not over?????

Nope! It's the part about agrees with you I have a problem with. We all know batted balls come off metal harder.
I and some others disagree with the verdict. The reason they have appeal courts is the correct the screw ups in lower courts. Their is no evidence that the risk warrants a warning label based on reported injuries over and above wood. As FC pointed out with a failure to warn there is no proof that a warning would stop players from playing when metal is used. There is also an obvious risk in playing the game that they can't deny they are aware of.
Can't add anything more so knock yourself out.

Well then, you have nothing to worry about do ya?

But I do like juries that understand physics.

Its been fun! (Nah, maybe not, but its been entertaining to say the least).

BHD and RJM,
If H&B didn't feel the evidence supported the verdict, there are plenty of motions they could file with the trial judge. Nothing so far says they have done any of that.
One motion they can file, in effect, says the verdict and judgement is not supported by the evidence. Please enlighten us about H&B filing those motions and the judge granting them. I will be happy to stop posting when you do.
Here you are on a message board arguing things H&B isn't arguing in Court, to this point.
BHD, you don't have any idea what the insurance issues might be because evidence of insurance is not admissible as evidence, in these proceedings.
No one on this site, and no juror in that courtroom, knows the insurance aspects. To be brunt, you are talking out of your hat.
Most every major corporation in the US has either a level of self insurance or a high deductible.
It saves them premium costs.
I would be stunned in H&B does not have such a deductible or is self insured. If they are, this verdict may not even reach the level of insurance.
Just an FYI, even though you know everything about every issue in the law...or you have a friend who does, most major corporations have a $500,000 or $1,000,000 retention before a carrier pays 10 cents. It saves them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

quote:

If H&B didn't feel the evidence supported the verdict, there are plenty of motions they could file with the trial judge. Nothing so far says they have done any of that.

The information from my source says the appeal will occur.

Infd I stopped trying to argue with you a long time ago in this thread..

That is no surprise. Everyone on this site knows an appeal will occur.
I was talking about motions H&B can file right now.
They contested the ability of the case to proceed to trial....and lost.
They tried the case....and lost.
There are plenty of motions they can file right now to contest the verdict without having to file an appeal.
Check with BHD, he will tell you about these. He is an expert on the laws from England to Montana. I am sure you will be well counseled by his guidance.
RJM, this case is now being tried on punitive damages.
That means, in effect, there is some evidence that H&B knew the risks of injury from their product and with conscious disregard, marketed and sold the product without warning.
None of us know what that evidence might be.

RJM they have no choice but to appeal.

Of course they have a choice.
They have the option to try and settle for some reduced amount with a non-disclosure provision and no admission of liability.
It is done all the time. The NCAA just did this is the Oliver case in Ohio.

quote:

The information from my source says the appeal will occur.

I love it! Lets trade some innuendos.

MY "sources" imply they and their peers in the business are scared as he!!. And no, I'm not BS'ing you one single bit on that one.

What is so biazarre that an appeal will occur? It makes sense to me. I'm getting the feeling some people are participating in these bat threads for the sake of fighting and sarcasm rather than discussion. It's lost it's appeal to me. If I hear more from my two sources I'll post it. Otherwise I'm done.

"Sources" mean nothing unless you can quote them directly. Ask BHD, he'll confirm this for you. He said, she said. Blah, blah, blah.

No one said its "bizarre" that an appeal will occur. I'm sure it will. Too much $$ at stake.

Nite!

If you paid attention along the way I said who the two sources are. I'm not going to use their names repeatedly.

Mr. "H.?"

While I understand his position in all of this, frankly, his view is about as valuable to me as Ms. Patch's is to you (and perhaps me too).

Thought there was something new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...in_the_United_States

http://www.loislaw.com/product...es/montana/index.htm

http://www.loislaw.com/product.../Montana/caselaw.htm

quote:

Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
[QUOTE]As pointed out by Fielder's Choice, the jury's decision is not based on law.

I suspect that this is opinion and not fact. It's not that I side with the jury, but if their ruling is absolutley contrary to the evidence, the judge can set their decision aside.

Judges set a juries ruling aside ? So if that were the case would it be trial by jury ? Think about that for a nano second.
By the way only 8 of the 12 jurists voted against the bat manufacturer.

Appeal court orders new trial in libel case against Toronto Star Tracey Tyler
Legal Affairs Reporter Published On Sat Nov 29
The Ontario Court of Appeal has set aside a jury's verdict that ordered the Toronto Star to pay $1.5 million in damages to a prominent businessman after finding the newspaper had libeled him in a story about his proposed golf course expansion and his ties to former premier Mike Harris.

In a 3-0 decision yesterday, the court said the trial judge made numerous legal errors while instructing the jury and in applying a new "public interest-responsible journalism" defence.

"Our position has always been the Toronto Star's reporter wrote a story on a matter of public interest and he did so responsibly," said Fred Kuntz, the Star's editor-in-chief.

Yesterday's ruling doesn't end the matter, however, because the court ordered a new trial.

While appeal courts can, in some instances, substitute their own decisions when judges fall into legal error, that's not possible in this case without the jury first deciding a key factual issue, said Justice Kathryn Feldman, who wrote the decision.

The jury had to decide the meaning of certain words in reporter Bill Schiller's June 23, 2001 story about Peter Grant, a New Liskeard-area businessman who was at the centre of a local debate about plans to expand his private "Frog's Breath" golf course.

That issue should have been resolved by the jury before the trial judge, Justice Paul Rivard, embarked on an analysis of whether the Star could rely on the "responsible journalism" defence, which offers journalists greater protection from lawsuits when reporting on matters of public interest, the court said.

"In fairness to the trial judge and to counsel, both very experienced and knowledgeable libel lawyers, they were all proceeding in new legal territory, as the courts still are with this defence," Feldman said, writing on behalf of panel that included Justices Marc Rosenberg and Janet Simmons.

"The court's decision should encourage more public-interest journalism," Kuntz said. "Our society will be better for it."

The jury's award included $1 million in punitive damages to Grant.

In its 54-page decision, the court faulted Rivard for numerous other missteps in his jury charge.

And therein lies a problem, said Peter Downard, Grant's lawyer.

Downard said the court undertook a "microscopic analysis" of Rivard's work and held him to a "standard of perfection" that few trial judges could meet, which opens the door to the prospect of jury verdicts being routinely overturned in libel cases – a potential nullification of the jury system, he suggested.

"It raises the spectre that no jury verdict will be immune from attack," he said. "I'm not saying a judge could never get it right, but libel is a complex area ... holding the judge's work to an unduly restrictive standard poses a threat to the jury system itself."

The case could well end up in the Supreme Court of Canada before a new trial takes place.

"We have concerns that the decision raises issues of national interest," Downard said.

At issue was Schiller's front-page story, which appeared under the headline "Cottagers teed off over golf course; Long-time Harris backer awaits Tory nod on plan."

Paul Schabas, a lawyer representing the Star, argued the story documented concerns of cottagers around Twin Lakes, near New Liskeard, about Grant's plan to expand his golf course, including worries the project would be accorded special status because of his influence and political ties.

Grant felt the story went further. Downard argued it suggested his client used political influence to circumvent the approval process and citizens' concerns.

One intriguing aspect of yesterday's ruling was Feldman's discovery that standard jury instructions used by judges in libel cases are misleading and wrong.

It appears that setting aside a verdict is based on a procedural error and not the stupidity of the jurists. Go figure.

http://ca.yhs.search.yahoo.com...t+aside+jury+verdict.