There is another lawsuit awaiting trial where the plaintiff is charging Louisville Slugger with negligence over a wood bat that broke and hit a player. Once again isn't the issue the organization that chooses to use wood or metal?

From a Louisville Slugger person:

"If the current ruling (the metal bat case) stands we will have to restructure our insurance and pay through the nose so to speak for coverage. If we lose the wood case or any wood case on similar grounds that will really change the playing field. The cost of doing business will at least double. I would think most of the smaller boutique bat makers would be out of business because of this added new costs."

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.