If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits

[KenC]

Would you trade shoes with this kid? If not, reconsider your position.

This is, after all, the bottom line in this sort of thing. We've all seen cases where people get minor injuries and receive large amounts of money, and maybe we would trade places with some of them, but this is different.

Here, several organizations (little league, manufacturers, etc.) drew a line and said what was on one side of it was safe. If someone nevertheless received a serious injury from a product on the approved side of the line, what is wrong with the manufacturer deciding to help them out?

 

[usayit]

[\

and? The bat maker should not be liable for what happened in ANY way..

They were not found liable. It was a settlement.

As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people. We should outlaw people.

 

[JAC526]

Every post Usayit has made in this thread is 100% spot on.

And the fact that you don't care what happens to some random person over the internet is deplorable.

 

[mjhoward]

[\

and? The bat maker should not be liable for what happened in ANY way..

They were not found liable. It was a settlement.

As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people. We should outlaw people.

They are now, in fact, financially and legally responsible for what happened, which is the very definition of legal liability. A settlement just means that they've AGREED to be liable. And I know that guns don't kill people, just as that bat didn't give the kid brain damage.

Every post Usayit has made in this thread is 100% spot on.

And the fact that you don't care what happens to some random person over the internet is deplorable.

That is your opinion, and I feel sorry for the kid. It was a freak accident and IMO nobody should be liable. I find it deplorable that you don't care what happens to a perfectly innocent business that is now legally responsible for paying 14.5M dollars.

 

[JAC526]

[\

and? The bat maker should not be liable for what happened in ANY way..

They were not found liable. It was a settlement.

As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people. We should outlaw people.

They are now, in fact, financially and legally responsible for what happened, which is the very definition of legal liability. A settlement just means that they've AGREED to be liable. And I know that guns don't kill people, just as that bat didn't give the kid brain damage.

Every post Usayit has made in this thread is 100% spot on.

And the fact that you don't care what happens to some random person over the internet is deplorable.

That is your opinion, and I feel sorry for the kid. It was a freak accident and IMO nobody should be liable. I find it deplorable that you don't care what happens to a perfectly innocent business that is now legally responsible for paying 14.5M dollars.

I do feel sorry for the company. They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.

The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.

 

[mjhoward]

I do feel sorry for the company. They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.

The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.

Ooooh, my apologies

 

[MLeeK]

This boggles my mind. Hell, most lawsuits are mind boggling these days.
Probably should sue the kid who hit the ball for having too hard of a swing.
The pitcher, well-he's most definitely at fault here. Wait, wasn't the kid the pitcher? He is at fault there for pitching a blatantly dangerous ball to the batter.
Whomever the coach is who taught the kid how to swing that bat should also be held at fault too. After all , he did teach the kid to hit the ball too hard. The batter's parents should also be held liable for not teaching their kid better than to hit a ball that could possibly strike another human being.
Probably should sue the city for having a baseball diamond there where kids can play this incredibly dangerous sport. Then don't forget the major leagues. They glamorize the sport for little kids much like the tobacco manufacturers do cigarettes. As you can see it's a lethal sport...
I certainly believe that all of those claims are just as valid as the one that won this poor kid 14+million.

 

[usayit]

They are now, in fact, financially and legally responsible for what happened, which is the very definition of legal liability. A settlement just means that they've AGREED to be liable. And I know that guns don't kill people, just as that bat didn't give the kid brain damage.

Not true unless you are privy to the details of the settlement. I never said that the lawsuit has merit but wanted to point out that the blame is misdirected and the lack of consideration for the situation reduces this to a sad state. Yes we have a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits but this case is a bad example to prove that point.

 

[molested_cow]

Can someone just sue God for creating idiots?

 

[IByte]

This is, after all, the bottom line in this sort of thing. We've all seen cases where people get minor injuries and receive large amounts of money, and maybe we would trade places with some of them, but this is different.

Here, several organizations (little league, manufacturers, etc.) drew a line and said what was on one side of it was safe. If someone nevertheless received a serious injury from a product on the approved side of the line, what is wrong with the manufacturer deciding to help them out?

It wasn't a donation, it was a pending lawsuit. I don't know, but suing a manufacturer for something that was out of their control is really scarey precedent indeed regardless if the CEO is not worried.

 

[JAC526]

I do feel sorry for the company. They certainly didn't set out to injure anyone.

The post I was referring to was the OPs in which he unequivocally stated that he doesn't care what happens to random people he doesn't know.

Ooooh, my apologies

No apology necessary. These kind of topics tend to get heated.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

They were not found liable. It was a settlement.

As for you trying to connect this to guns.... guns don't kill people.. people kill people. We should outlaw people.

Well using your logic, bats don't injure people... People injure people. So why was the bat blamed?

 

[ceejtank]

Everyone believes in survival of the fittest.. no one wants to apply it to humans.... - Joe Rogan

And I agree 100%.

 

[skieur]

While I'm sorry that the boy suffered a brain injury... that lawsuit is ridiculous. If this sets precedence, then I think I'll sue the manufacturer of my coffee cup because the coffee pot brewed the water too hot.

The lawsuit is not at all ridiculous. The boy is probably not capable of a normal life and will require care: medical, physical and financial for the rest of his life. The cost of the lawsuit would have been more than one million dollars. Rehab costs out at well over $200 per hour. A psychiatric report for court use is $6,000 to 10,000 dollars. Photocopying of legal documents $20,000. Constant supervision costs $6,000 to $10,000 per month.

The lawyer who brought the suit would have costed out every aspect of care which would have been verified by the other side and agreed upon or no settlement would have been possible.

This is standard legal and court practice in litigation.

skieur

 

[rexbobcat]

Yes, but there's a difference between "can you pay for our medical bills and other general expenses brought on by the lawsuit" and, "we need 14.5 million dollars."

If all of that cost them 14.5M then the healthcare system in the US is worse than I thought...