If Anybody's Intereted in Lawsuits

[MTVision]

That's the only way I could see justification in this lawsuit. If the bat had some kind of anomaly during manufacturing that made it more dangerous...Yes...I can understand that.

But if the lawsuit is because "metal bats make things go faster than wooden bats" then, no...just...no...

But if it's the latter, I wonder they're going to have to puts warning on their products about safety.

It would be really messed up if this was like the case where a guy sued a small lawnmower company into oblivion because he picked the mower up to chop hedges (???) and got his fingers cut off. But since there was no label that says not to do that, he won the case. At least that's how I think it went. Let us protect people from themselves. Lol

Kind of off-topic but the lawn mower thing seems to happen often. Just the other day on FB somebody was complaining about all the safety recalls on baby products and how the stupid people who make them obviously don't do enough testing. The person was talking about a specific product - the bumbo seat for infants. Now there was a safety recall in 2007 for this seat. Why you ask? Because they needed to put warnings on it warning people not to use this seat on elevated surfaces. Mind you this is for a very young infant - like around 3 months. It was just recalled again because there had been cases of infants falling and getting skull fractures. The majority of the injuries were with the seat placed at unknown elevations. Now they are recalling to put safety restraints on it.

Common sense dictates, at least to me, that you don't place a very young infant in a seat on any elevated surface. Plus it's not meant to be a babysitter. It's not a seat that is meant for a child to just sit in and lounge around. Parental supervision is required. This type of thing is due to plain ole stupidity IMO. It's pretty silly that everything has to be spelled out so clearly otherwise people don't understand what common sense should tell them.....

 

[skieur]

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...

All of that will cost 14.5 million over his projected lifespan according to the legal team that costed it out,...and that is not unreasonable.

skieur

 

[skieur]

The bat company shouldn't be forced to pay anything, and at this time they werent. The plaintiff would have lost this suit. You make a product, if someone uses it, and something bad happens - you won't be held at fault unless it the issue happened because of something your company did.

In this instance the bat was used properly and showed no defects. They should have sued the league for letting metal bats be used.

That being said, I think the CEO of the company "settled" to be nice to be honest. Which is why he isn't worried about precedent. Also - since this was settled, and wasn't a court ruling "precedent" cannot be set. It was a voluntary action.

Sorry, but you are wrong. With more experience in the law and litigation, you and several others here would have a better understanding of this case.

Legally, the decision was correct and legally the amount was correct as well.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!

But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.

The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.

 

[mjhoward]

Oh yay! More of Skieur's "take my word for it" baloney!

This I agree with 100%

But I agree. there is something that we're not seeing here. The company's attorneys would not have suggested settlement unless it would have cost more to litigate. At $14M, this isn't likely the case unless they felt they couldn't win.

The mere fact that they settled at such a huge amount says to me that the case was pretty open and shut in favor of the plaintiff.

This, however, I don't really agree with. Just because they settled for that amount doesn't mean they didn't feel like they couldn't win. Maybe it was just not worth the bad publicity if they had a trial over it. I also think that the 14.5M was a combined ruling between the Manufacturer of the bat, the Little League organization, AND the store that sold the bat. Since the parents went after all 3, I highly doubt it was because of a result in the way the bat was manufactured that would have caused it to be more dangerous than usual.

 

[ProsPhotos]

I wonder if anyone got any pictures of it...

 

[rexbobcat]

Sorry, but you are wrong. With more experience in the law and litigation, you and several others here would have a better understanding of this case.

Legally, the decision was correct and legally the amount was correct as well.

skieur

Lol. Yes. Objectively the legal decision and amount was correct? XD

I wish I could apply the thought process of this lawsuit to all of the bad things that happened to me.

Get in a car wreck? Medical bills up in the hundred thousands? Car manufacturer's fault!

**** happens. And sometimes that **** is very, very bad. Don't always expect someone else to pay for it.

 

[MLeeK]

Good lord you need to read more...

Look up the legal definition of lawsuit...

Look up the legal definition of settlement...


Blame is irrelevant... no blame was assigned... only liability matters of which the judge never gave his final word.




PS> JAC526 used "deplorable"... I personally would have chosen "extreme lack of empathy".... I'm not sure which is better... my terminology is used to describe a condition in DSM 4. So maybe that's too strong.

Regardless of semantics, an innocent manufacturer is out 14.5M over a freak accident in which they were uninvolved in. Not only that, but the parents sued the friggin store that sold the bat, whom also had zero involvement in the freak accident. You may like that kind of precedent, but I sure dont

I believe the lawsuit was totally unwarranted. However, we have not considered here that this was the company's way of donating to a cause that they felt for.
I am guessing a portion of that lawsuit or all of it is covered by some type of insurance-we preach insurance in here for this very reason.
So... Who is to say that the guy who made the call on this lawsuit said, "you know what? This kid needs any help he can get for the rest of his life. Let's come to a settlement and give a little back to a kid who got injured playing the game?"

 

[KmH]

If I read the story correctly, 3 entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.

...lawsuit against the bat manufacturer, Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain....
.......Domalewski was playing in a Police Athletic League game, but Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for - and safe for - use in games involving children

Rick Redman, a spokesman for Hillerich and Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger brand bat, confirmed a settlement had been reached, but declined further comment.

An attorney representing The Sports Authority, the national sporting goods retailer, did not immediately return calls seeking comment....

 

[mjhoward]

If I read the story correctly, 3 entities were sued and will share in paying the award, making one wonder about some previously made comments.

...lawsuit against the bat manufacturer, Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain....
.......Domalewski was playing in a Police Athletic League game, but Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for - and safe for - use in games involving children

Rick Redman, a spokesman for Hillerich and Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger brand bat, confirmed a settlement had been reached, but declined further comment.

An attorney representing The Sports Authority, the national sporting goods retailer, did not immediately return calls seeking comment....

That's what I read as well.

I also think that the 14.5M was a combined ruling between the Manufacturer of the bat, the Little League organization, AND the store that sold the bat. Since the parents went after all 3, I highly doubt it was because of a result in the way the bat was manufactured that would have caused it to be more dangerous than usual.

 

[sapper6fd]

EDITED to remove my stupidity.

In regards to my stupidity I have this to say....

"You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."

 

[mjhoward]

After reading this guys site, it sounds to me like he couldnt care less about the sale of his photos. Its written in such a way that it apears as if he is posting his work in the hopes someone will take the image so he can proffit off of a lasw suit.

I honest believe this guy wants people to rip his work. He has no interest in the sales. He's only interest is in suing those who take them becaue he knows its more valuble this way.

What the hell are you talking about!

 

[sapper6fd]

What the hell are you talking about!

Bwaaahahaha! I pulled a stupid. Wrong thread. Disregard! Hahahaha. Had three windows open and wanted to reply to one of them, didnt look at the thread before posting.

 

[Ballistics]

Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?

Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?

 

[sapper6fd]

Can someone explain to me how the bat manufacturer,sporting goods chain, and league are responsible at all that they should even settle in the first place?

Semantics aside and all the other irrelevant crap like "would you trade places", why should there be a lawsuit in the first place?

Did you ever wonder why McDonalds coffee cups say "Caution! Contents Hot!"? Its because oneone pilt it on themself and sued McDonalds becuase they werent warned the contents were hot. Yes its a given, but unless there is a warning label on the product warning of every thing that ***might happen***, you probably have a case on your hands. The next batch of bats from this manufacturer will probably have a label that states "WARNING! Do not stand in front ball after struck by bat".