Why hasn't there been a lawsuit?

I would imagine eventually when somebody gets hurt or killed, there will be a lawsuit.

How about potentially going after the owner of the bat and not just the manufacture if it csn somehow be proved they were "bat rolling" to knock it out of spec right out of the wrapper?

Normally, these things are just accidents but could liability be proven against the owner of a bat that was rolled?

There has a few lawsuits files for injuries due to a rolled or shaved bat but it has to with slow pitch softball where the rolling/shaving thing started.

Don't think it won't happen.

As for the rolling thing, a crafty lawyer will mention more than one person/group in a lawsuit. I wouldn't be suprised if the parents of the kid that owned the bat, the company that produced the bat, the school district that allowed the bat, the city that owns the ballfield and the company that made the baseball (it is hard you know, might take an eye out) get named in the suit.

Throw a blanket and maybe someone will get snagged in it.

Personally, this isn't a case of a faulty Toyota. Whether the bats should be banned or not isn't the issue as far as lawsuits go. Parents allow their kids to play in these games knowing that composites and metal bats are being used so they have some responsibility for the results if something bad happens. If (God Forbid) my son gets hit by a batted ball I can't blame anyone but me for letting him play.

But that is me.

The hard part is proving the bat, as it has broken in, would increase the probability of a pitcher getting hit and injured. That has been the complication between metal/composite and wood.

Is the increase in proability statistically significant? If so, by how much and what other factors go into place, like pitcher speed, pitcher's accuracy, batter's strength, etc.

The counter argument is that the pitcher should throw the ball slower so the bat does not trampoline so much off the bat. In addition, the pitcher should have better control and not throw the ball in an area that causes it to get hit back at him.


BTW, my son, while pitching weekend before last, got a liner back at him that tipped off the glove and hit him right in his throwing arm. Luckily it was on the side like he got punched in the arm. Outer half CB that was up too much. The blame was not on the bat, but on the pitch location. Batter tried to pull it and got enough barrel on the ball to come back through the middle. Luckily it did not hit him in the face, but if it had, the issue would have been the same.

I just don't like putting all the blame on the bats.

Just some food for thought...

Are you aware that the force that will be exerted by the ball impacting the pitcher is proportional to the velocity of the ball squared?

4-8 mph more velocity off the bat translates to a heck of a lot more force at impact.

Again, just something to think about.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

4-8 mph more velocity off the bat translates to a heck of a lot more force at impact.

Again, just something to think about.

But comparing composite to wood, the 4-8 mph difference across the board would be lower by using wood. So while the faster the pich, the harder it's hit, it still don't address the real issue comparing composites to wood.

Talking about exit speed zomby...which is faster off metal. Not talking about pitch speed.

JB,
The problem is, determining what % increase in the probability of the pitcher actually being hit with a batted ball, does composite provide. There is no argument that with pitch speed and the batter being equal, the ball coming off the composite bat will exit at a greater speed.

The problem in the legal argument is how much more likely is a pitcher to get hit with the ball when batted from a composite than a wood. In some case the increase probability would be 0% (dead pull hitter) but possibly a lot more with a batter that uses the middle.

The only way to begin proving it out is to keep track of the actual # of pitches that get hit at the pitcher. If the bat speed is the same, using a composite should not increase a batters likelihood of hitting the ball back at the pitcher. Only an increased chance of different results when the occurrence happens.

Details--which don't change the essential aspect of the message-- but the force (and momentum, too) of impact is proportional to ball velocity, while the kinetic energy goes up by the square of velocity.

Faster batted ball speed means more damage to a hit player.

3Finger - Of course...you are right.

Message is the same, but of course I shouldn't type messages quickly between meetings.

All of this stuff is academic guys.

I hate to say this but all that is needed is a really good lawyer, some 'expert' witnesses and an injured teenager looking at the jury and the deal will be sealed.

If juries can award million dollar settlements for coffee burns then this will be a no brainer.

quote:

Originally posted by Wklink:
All of this stuff is academic guys.

I hate to say this but all that is needed is a really good lawyer, some 'expert' witnesses and an injured teenager looking at the jury and the deal will be sealed.

If juries can award million dollar settlements for coffee burns then this will be a no brainer.

Do you have seven hundred previous cases settle in baseball over metal bats like there were in the McDonald's trail?

"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."

"Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan."

The McDonald's lawsuit is a great story of frivilous lawsuits until facts get in the way.

Maybe but the fact that 2.4 million in punative damages to McDonals was the reason I used this line. Compensatory damages were 200K but the jurors awarded over 2.4 million more based upon a perceived wrong. It didn't matter that STARBUCKS, BURGER KING and others served their coffee in exactly the same way. It was industry standard and unfortunately to make hot coffee you have to run really hot water through coffee grounds.

Just an FYI, McDonalds still serves their coffee at the same temp. Ultimately I believe that if you are a person that wants to drink hot coffee you have to realize the risk of pouring the stuff on your lap.

So it doesn't matter that injuries from wood bats may or may not be the same as metal. The fact that there are injuries related to metal/composite bats mean that a crafty lawyer can create a lawsuit. I mean McDonalds did nothing really any different than your local barista but that didn't change anything until the judge stepped in.

It's no different with bats. There may not be as many cases but all it really takes is one or two to force a recall. One or two tear jerkers is enough. Whether the lawsuit has any basis or not isn't important. All it takes is one or two lawsuits to get the ball rolling. Thank God for the good ol USA. If you can't beat em-Sue EM.

Here are some more lawsuits that really have no basis. (found these on the web-aint google wonderful?)

A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios sued for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.

A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."

In a "liar, liar no pants on fire case", a California nudist sued an event organizer when he burned his feet while doing a fire walk, after being told the activity may be dangerous.

The same injuries are and will be caused from wood bats with just slightly less frequency! What then? Sue them also? Does frequency make that big a difference?

We could all live in a bubble

Definitely not a fan of frivolous lawsuits, but...

Following another poster's advice , I've been doing a lot more "Googling" of this debate going back to at least 1989. Did you know EXACTLY the same language was being used back then to tell newspapers, legislators and councilmen that metal bats behaved just as wood bats? And we all know now...that it just was NOT true then ...and most likely isn't true now.

Did you know that as far back as 1989 (major US publication) that the same bat executives as today were defending metal bats and how they performed no better than the best wood bats?

Did you know back then that the same people were quoted in an article that talked about metal replacing wood at the highest levels (Yup, pro baseball)?

Did you know that "testers" at a major university were saying that their tests concluded that the performance of the metal bat of 1989 was the same as, but no better than the 'best white ash wood bat?'

Come on folks...we know this simply was NOT true. Its all been acknowledged. Who paid for those tests? (Articles don't tell us).

Did you know that as HS's were switching to -3 bats that the same bat executives as today were being quoted in newspapers about how this will degrade the HS game? About how most HS kids cannot swing a -3 bat?

Knowing what you know now, do you believe this?

So why believe them now? (Ah! emotion). But seriously, why believe them now? Did they know then what we know now? Or were they negligent in not appropriately testing their product to understand the risks?

These are the reasons lawsuits happen. Because people don't tell the truth...or they bury their heads under a pillow and don't listen to the truth...or they suspect the truth and don't look to find out if their suspicions are true or not.

A "good" lawsuit...digs the facts out...and like bad doctors or lawyers or engineers who are 'outed'...we all benefit from it.

Just something to think about.

This thread went off course from the get-go.

RJM posed a specific legal question: What happens when an individual is injured by a ball off a type of bat that has been proven to exceed safety ratings?

This isn't about wood vs. "metal". It's about non-conforming composites that are being used on thousands of HS ballfields this morning as I type these words.

Most things are shades of gray; this one is black and white.

The manufacturers knowingly produced non-conforming products. The HS gov. assoc. knowingly continues to allow their use. Therefore, all injuries off composite bats are presumptively the fault of the bat.

A bat industry insider summed it up:

"I can tell you this, composite bats have been brought under scrutiny and banned by a major organizing body. The industry cannot hide from this fact. The manufacturers have been made aware of the danger of a bat that passes the certification and then surpasses the rules. Anything that happens now is fair game in the courts and everyone will be scrambling to protect themselves."

http://www.softballfans.com/fo...=9733009#post9733009

The questions with composites isn't whether they are dangerous if they are 'rolled' or whatever. The question is whether the designer of the bad knowingly made a defective product or dangerous. The manufacturer can't be held liable for unauthorized useage of their product.

Modifying a bat of any type will void the warrenty of a bat. A composite that is rolled automatically voids that warranty. As long as there are baseball products being made there will be people who will try to alter those problems to gain an advantage. To me rolling a bat is no different than corking a bad, it is just harder to catch.

My point wasn't that there should be a lawsuit, my point is that eventually there will be one because we are a society that likes to sue. We misuse a product and then blame the company because they didn't warn us that doing something unauthorized with the product could be harmful.

There's a doctrine called "assumption of risks" which says that if you engage in a risky activity, knowing the risks, you can't recover when your risk is realized. If you get into a car with a drunk driver, knowing he is drunk, you assume the risk of an accident. The doctrine varies from state to state (in my state, it's an absolute bar to recovery, in others, it's a factor in comparative negligence).

The trick is what risks did you assume? With wooden bats, you assume a risk of a ball coming off the bat at a high speed. With metal bats, the risk is a ball coming off at ridiculously high speeds and some people aren't aware of THAT risk.

One good lawsuit might change things-suits got rid of the Ford Pinto...

quote:

Originally posted by Wklink:
The questions with composites isn't whether they are dangerous if they are 'rolled' or whatever. The question is whether the designer of the bad knowingly made a defective product or dangerous. The manufacturer can't be held liable for unauthorized useage of their product.

Modifying a bat of any type will void the warrenty of a bat. A composite that is rolled automatically voids that warranty. As long as there are baseball products being made there will be people who will try to alter those problems to gain an advantage. To me rolling a bat is no different than corking a bad, it is just harder to catch.

My point wasn't that there should be a lawsuit, my point is that eventually there will be one because we are a society that likes to sue. We misuse a product and then blame the company because they didn't warn us that doing something unauthorized with the product could be harmful.

With all due respect, you are missing the point.

Composites exceed the safety ratings after normal usage. They don't have to be rolled to do so.

From the outset, the industry was aware of composite intra-layer delamination. From the outset, the industry knowingly marketed and produced a product that exceeds safety ratings after normal usage.

I despise lawsuits. Most safety labels are nonsense. But the average parent has no idea that virtually all game-used composites exceed the safety ratings. Most would assume that a BESR or BPF-rated bat actually conforms to BESR or BPF.

In the words of a bat industry insider:

1. "In the interest of safety, it is important that every participant in an at-risk activity have full disclosure of the danger they subject themselves to and that those risks are not unduly increased without their prior knowledge."


2. [The NCAA composite ban is] "enforcing a performance rule that has been willingly and knowingly ignored by some manufacturers...."


Essentially, the manufacturers concealed a risk. From both a legal and common-sense standpoint, concealing risk cancels an assumption-of-risk defense.

http://collegebaseball.rivals....420849&tid=124317196


http://www.softballfans.com/fo...wthread.php?t=697336

post # 4

Freddy, Don't confuse law and common sense, they're sometimes strange bedfellows, but if there was deliberate concealment, that can be proven, yes, it's a different ball game, pun intended. Then you have a Ford Pinto situation. (Ford knew of the gas tank defect but internally decided it would cost more to fix than they would pay out in damages to injured occupants. When that memo went in front of a couple juries, considering claims where death occured as a result of the exploding gas tanks, they rightfully buried Ford.)

quote:

Originally posted by hokieone:
Freddy, Don't confuse law and common sense, they're sometimes strange bedfellows, but if there was deliberate concealment, that can be proven, yes, it's a different ball game, pun intended. Then you have a Ford Pinto situation. (Ford knew of the gas tank defect but internally decided it would cost more to fix than they would pay out in damages to injured occupants. When that memo went in front of a couple juries, considering claims where death occured as a result of the exploding gas tanks, they rightfully buried Ford.)

Hokie,
Point well taken about confusing law and commonsense. But I'm saying this is a rare instance where they're parallel.

For the court of public opinion, what more evidence of deliberate concealment do you require than the public statements of a bat industry insider?

For a court of law, presumably there are reams of discoverable files within the bat industry backing up his contention.
_____________

I'm not a lawyer (lyer). But, on second thought, I think this is not so much deliberate concealment as it is "failure to warn." IMHO, it's a rare instance where "failure to warn" constitutes the potential basis for a lawsuit that's morally/logically/legally justified.

Presumably, there's a lower threshold for failure-to-warn than for deliberate concealment.

More from a bat industry insider. He's talking about composite softball batsm, but it sheds light on comp. bb bats.

"We knew there was a problem but the organizing bodies either didn’t recognize it or chose not to recognize it. They were letting the manufacturers police themselves and relying on the threat of them banning bats as a deterrent strong enough to keep the manufacturers in line.

The manufacturers were more than a step ahead and stayed there using the threat of litigation as their deterrent while they willingly and knowingly built products that defied the rules. Ironically it was the bat doctors that kept the organizing bodies at bay for the manufacturers. The Manufacturers contractually kept new products as the only test specimen allowed. They held that they could not allow a bat that had been tampered with by an outside entity be the reason they had a product black balled at great expense to themselves. This left the bat doctors holding the liability and the break-in issue unattended.

Both the Manufacturers and the organizing bodies skirted liability by virtue of the primary assumption of risk doctrine where the participant cannot hold others liable for an injury sustained because of known risks inherent in the game. The assumption-of-risk defense is dependent upon the risk being both known and inherent. If only new bats were used in testing there was no more than anecdotal evidence that the bat improved beyond the known inherent risk. That’s kind of convenient, no?

Several companies that offer only composite products made themselves a name based on this legal slight-of-hand by purposefully building bats that they knew were going to eventually become illegal.

You are probably wondering what changed. One of the organizing bodies started to do a little long-overdue research and tested a brand new bat for performance throughout its lifecycle. They tested it from new-in-wrapper to failure. They skirted the used bat test argument by buying it new and making it used from their own work. A bat bought at retail was tested to failure and found to improve well beyond the performance limits before ultimately worsening and finally catastrophically failing. So they tested another one and it failed after break-in too. It turns out there were no “elite” composite bats that didn’t improve past the rule. 100% failure! So they rewrote the rules and included an Accelerated Break In protocol. All of the bats that didn’t pass will eventually become landfill after a short grandfather period but that sunset date may not be too far away.

Once someone established that the products improved beyond the rules, something had to be done to maintain the assumption of risk and the protection from liability. So they made a rule that includes the break-in process. That puts the onus on the manufacturers to build products that stay within the rules. Once the manufacturers do that, the onus for a doctored bat falls directly on the user and, if it is traceable, the bat doctors themselves. The threat must be clear and assumed risk of injury cannot be increased without full disclosure of the added danger or someone is liable for injuries."

http://www.softballfans.com/fo....php?t=697589&page=5