$14.5 million settlement in lawsuit against bat company

[johnnyg08]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8292542/stephen-domalewski-left-brain-injury-settles-metal-bat-suit

[stl_ump]

So why was Sports Authority ans Little League sued?

i'm surprised they didn't go after the coaches and umps. Maybe they did.

[Jocko]

"Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for --and safe for -- use in games involving children."

Sports Authority must've sold it to them.

I say sue the auto maker because they made and sold the car that was used to transport the bat, and the oil company, nike, coca cola, gatorade......... This just goes on and on.

[Called3rdStrike]

Sue the parents for putting their kid in a dangerous situation with the potential of him getting hurt. Isn't that child abuse?

[johnnyg08]

If you read this carefully...it sounds as though the real neglect came in the care the boy received after going unconscious.

15-20 minutes w/o oxygen to the brain?

To me, that's not the bat company. Sad story either way though. You never want to read about this type of injury. Sad.

[Jocko]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

[renegadewolf]

Gotta love the runaway lawsuit society of america. Not that a kid lay dead on the field (and yes, if they were doing CPR he was vital sign abscent, which means dead) isn't absolutely horrific, because it is, but trying to hold the organization and the place that sold the bat responsible for the injuries incured is just amazing.

[umpcoachfather]

Wonder why they didnt get anything from the ball manufacturer. Renegade, Canada, AKA "the luckiest country in the world" also has its share of crazy lawsuits. So in that regard we are not alone.

[renegadewolf]

Wonder why they didnt get anything from the ball manufacturer. Renegade, Canada, AKA "the luckiest country in the world" also has its share of crazy lawsuits. So in that regard we are not alone.

Well, out countries are attached... some of the crazy has to rub off. Please note the intentional ambiguity of the previous statement

[BigSimonia]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

[UmpJM]

BigSimonia,

I would have expected that the plaintiff's suit would have been denied due to the principle of "primary assumption of risk".

But I'm not a lawyer.

JM

[stl_ump]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

Why does there have to be a settlement? It was an accidient. No one did anything on purpose.

I guess that's why bat companies and the like carry insurance... for situations like this.

[Called3rdStrike]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

I think nothing happening would be just. Bats have been dulled down because they were said to be too hot. If he was using an illegal bat(BESR instead ofBBCOR) the only person I could see at fault would be the batter for using it. Louisville slugger didn't swing the bat or throw the baseball, they just simply produce the bat.

But this lawsuit doesn't surprise me, seeing as how you can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee on you that's "too hot" ("can I get a coffee...but make sure it's hot, but not to hot. Do you have a warm cup of coffee?)

I guess when all my teeth fall out because I have no gums from the result of eating 4+ packs of sunflower seeds a day. I'll be able to sue David sunflower seeds.

[Jocko]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

I think they file claim on the team insurance. Why not sue Christian Bale for the shootings in Colorado?

Can't sue Michelin for potholes

Can't sue Hershey's for being overweight

Can't sure PlayBoy for Carpal Tunnel

I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at Holiday Inn Express once.

[BigSimonia]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

I think nothing happening would be just. Bats have been dulled down because they were said to be too hot. If he was using an illegal bat(BESR instead ofBBCOR) the only person I could see at fault would be the batter for using it. Louisville slugger didn't swing the bat or throw the baseball, they just simply produce the bat.

But this lawsuit doesn't surprise me, seeing as how you can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee on you that's "too hot" ("can I get a coffee...but make sure it's hot, but not to hot. Do you have a warm cup of coffee?)

I guess when all my teeth fall out because I have no gums from the result of eating 4+ packs of sunflower seeds a day. I'll be able to sue David sunflower seeds.

Ok- Fair enough, if that's your opinion. Yeah, I know about the McDonald's lawsuit - you oughta check out the facts though, because it's clear by your comments, you haven't the faintest idea what actually happened.

Next question - What should happen to the kid? Who pays for the 14.5 million needed for his care? And before you say "his parent's medical insurance" there is no proof that they had such coverage, or that it was sufficient to cover the actual cost of their son's lifetime care. And why is it more just that the medical policy cover the cost (if there is one) rather than the company that manufactured an "unsafe" bat that was labeled as "safe"?

Ok done with the lawyer bit - putting my ump hat back on a shutting up.

[Called3rdStrike]

If CPR was started by a bystander, and EMS was only "minutes" away teaching CPR, how did he go so long w/o O2?

A tragedy, no doubt, but seems NOONE is to blame.

"Minutes" = 15 to 20.

Full disclosure - I'm a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what do YOU think a "just" result should be in this case?

I think nothing happening would be just. Bats have been dulled down because they were said to be too hot. If he was using an illegal bat(BESR instead ofBBCOR) the only person I could see at fault would be the batter for using it. Louisville slugger didn't swing the bat or throw the baseball, they just simply produce the bat.

But this lawsuit doesn't surprise me, seeing as how you can sue McDonald's for spilling coffee on you that's "too hot" ("can I get a coffee...but make sure it's hot, but not to hot. Do you have a warm cup of coffee?)

I guess when all my teeth fall out because I have no gums from the result of eating 4+ packs of sunflower seeds a day. I'll be able to sue David sunflower seeds.

Ok- Fair enough, if that's your opinion. Yeah, I know about the McDonald's lawsuit - you oughta check out the facts though, because it's clear by your comments, you haven't the faintest idea what actually happened.

Next question - What should happen to the kid? Who pays for the 14.5 million needed for his care? And before you say "his parent's medical insurance" there is no proof that they had such coverage, or that it was sufficient to cover the actual cost of their son's lifetime care. And why is it more just that the medical policy cover the cost (if there is one) rather than the company that manufactured an "unsafe" bat that was labeled as "safe"?

Ok done with the lawyer bit - putting my ump hat back on a shutting up.

You are correct. I don't know much about the McDonald's suit. I know they had their machines to hot, but what else do you expect when you buy a cup of coffee.

14.5 million dollars is quite a large number. The bat wasn't unsafe. It was a bat that was legal for a period of time then got banned. You can still purchase these bats.

What's to say the batter was using a legal bbcor or even a wood bat. Same situation happens. Whose fault is it now?

[scrounge]

Ok- Fair enough, if that's your opinion. Yeah, I know about the McDonald's lawsuit - you oughta check out the facts though, because it's clear by your comments, you haven't the faintest idea what actually happened.

Next question - What should happen to the kid? Who pays for the 14.5 million needed for his care? And before you say "his parent's medical insurance" there is no proof that they had such coverage, or that it was sufficient to cover the actual cost of their son's lifetime care. And why is it more just that the medical policy cover the cost (if there is one) rather than the company that manufactured an "unsafe" bat that was labeled as "safe"?

Ok done with the lawyer bit - putting my ump hat back on a shutting up.

Well, that's quite a bit of conflating and moving of the goalposts, IMO. Is the relevant question really what should happen to the kid? Regardless of the answer, that's an entirely different question than who is RESPONSIBLE for it. One can easily answer your question by saying he should be taken care of for life. But where does that leave us? Who is obligated to pay for such care? Shouldn't this obligation bear some resemblance to actual fault? Or are we to merely award judgments based on sympathy and subjective determinations of 'deserve'? If the need of the victim is all that matters, then any organization of means - no matter how tangentially related - could be ordered to pay.

Again, what relevance does the status or lack thereof of the parent's medical insurance have to the question of the guilt or responsibility of the defendants? Are they less culpable if the parents have adequate coverage? That's the implication of your question. Now if it's determined that the parties are guilty, then and ONLY then does it become relevant, but you've set it up as a causal item.

Finally, you've just assumed that the company made an 'unsafe' bat without in any way saying why. Who determined it was 'unsafe'? Was it used improperly? Did it violate governmental or industry standards? I realize these are exactly the questions the jury decides, but the very framing of your argument/questions makes it into "we've got to do something for this poor kid and those people have a lot of money".

The question at hand is whether the parties (really, Sports Authority? I guess they shouldn't sell anything that anyone can get hurt with at any time) are responsible or negligent. Otherwise, if it's just all about getting this kid a bunch of money for his care, might as well find Apple or Boeing responsible.

[Jocko]

Ok. I'm bailing on this before someone mentions ObamaCare and The 2nd Amendment. I'm out. Adios.

[jpperez14]

Baseball is baseball. Being a pitcher requires you to be on your toes and be ready for a comebacker. Metal bats or wood bats isn't going to be a big difference. Its tragic what happened, but your sueing baseball because you allow your kid to play. Nobody should be at fault. Just like the lady that sued the 10yr old because he overthrew the pitcher in the bullpen, and she was sitting at a picnic table behind the bullpen. It hit her in the face and she sued the kid because he was careless. That is ridiculous. The things that happen now-a-days is unreal.

[BigSimonia]

Ok- Fair enough, if that's your opinion. Yeah, I know about the McDonald's lawsuit - you oughta check out the facts though, because it's clear by your comments, you haven't the faintest idea what actually happened.

Next question - What should happen to the kid? Who pays for the 14.5 million needed for his care? And before you say "his parent's medical insurance" there is no proof that they had such coverage, or that it was sufficient to cover the actual cost of their son's lifetime care. And why is it more just that the medical policy cover the cost (if there is one) rather than the company that manufactured an "unsafe" bat that was labeled as "safe"?

Ok done with the lawyer bit - putting my ump hat back on a shutting up.

Well, that's quite a bit of conflating and moving of the goalposts, IMO. Is the relevant question really what should happen to the kid? Regardless of the answer, that's an entirely different question than who is RESPONSIBLE for it. One can easily answer your question by saying he should be taken care of for life. But where does that leave us? Who is obligated to pay for such care? Shouldn't this obligation bear some resemblance to actual fault? Or are we to merely award judgments based on sympathy and subjective determinations of 'deserve'? If the need of the victim is all that matters, then any organization of means - no matter how tangentially related - could be ordered to pay.

Again, what relevance does the status or lack thereof of the parent's medical insurance have to the question of the guilt or responsibility of the defendants? Are they less culpable if the parents have adequate coverage? That's the implication of your question. Now if it's determined that the parties are guilty, then and ONLY then does it become relevant, but you've set it up as a causal item.

Finally, you've just assumed that the company made an 'unsafe' bat without in any way saying why. Who determined it was 'unsafe'? Was it used improperly? Did it violate governmental or industry standards? I realize these are exactly the questions the jury decides, but the very framing of your argument/questions makes it into "we've got to do something for this poor kid and those people have a lot of money".

The question at hand is whether the parties (really, Sports Authority? I guess they shouldn't sell anything that anyone can get hurt with at any time) are responsible or negligent. Otherwise, if it's just all about getting this kid a bunch of money for his care, might as well find Apple or Boeing responsible.

My final comment - The company paid 14.5 million dollars. That leads me to believe THEY felt there was significant merit to the claim that the bat was unsafe and that they bore a great deal of responsibility. It's not my experience that company's pay multi-million dollar settlements without substantial exposure to liability. But you kep dodging the question - what do YOU think is the "just" result?

[bam]

My final comment - The company paid 14.5 million dollars. That leads me to believe THEY felt there was significant merit to the claim that the bat was unsafe and that they bore a great deal of responsibility. It's not my experience that company's pay multi-million dollar settlements without substantial exposure to liability. But you kep dodging the question - what do YOU think is the "just" result?

"Just" is the parents being responsible for their children. Not insured? Can't play, son.

And being a slimy lawyer, you know why companies settle this type of lawsuit. Because 1) their insurance covers it and 2) we all know what can happen with a jury when the slimy lawyer wheels the kid into the courtroom. That could cost the company 100s of millions.

100 lawyers on the ocean floor being a good start and all.......

[HokieUmp]

My final comment - The company paid 14.5 million dollars. That leads me to believe THEY felt there was significant merit to the claim that the bat was unsafe and that they bore a great deal of responsibility. It's not my experience that company's pay multi-million dollar settlements without substantial exposure to liability. But you kep dodging the question - what do YOU think is the "just" result?

Since you keep commenting, I assume that you still want answers/replies.

As to the first part: the payment leads ME to believe it was a business decision, and not that they felt responsibility. Corporations aren't people, for one thing - the Supreme Court notwithstanding - so 'they' can't 'feel' responsibility. What they have are balance sheets: it was easier and cheaper to settle, rather than pay lawyers for a long defense, only to get a jury to see the 'human element' and make them pay even more, AND pay for their lawyers, and MAYBE also have to pay the legal costs of the parents. As I recall, there wasn't an admission of responsibility by the company. Just a check. So I'd have to disagree with your analysis that the company felt there was merit to the claim. They paid now to avoid later liability; paying w/o admission doesn't expose them to future cases.

As to "just result": that's a red herring. There IS no such thing. The kid is screwed physically. The parents are screwed financially. The company decided to take a "screwing" by dropping 14.5 mil. An insurance company - if there was one in this case - would have been "screwed" by actually having to pay claims. Other people insured by said company might get "screwed" down the road by paying higher premiums and/or having further scrutiny on claims. When one person in this multi-variable equation wins, someone else loses, or doesn't win as much as everyone else.

And the kid is still permanently hurt. There is no just result.

[basejester]

If the kid drops over dead from a heart attack, what's the just result? None, obviously. The bat wasn't inherently unsafe. The amount the bat company should be responsible for is proportional to their negligence, which I think is none. They sued companies because they had money.

[Jocko]

Im with Hokie. At the end of the day, you have a barely functional millionaire. Wheres the justice. An ins co has raised rates, making product more expensive. Wheres the justice? This young man is effed up FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. No amount of $ will change that. He doesn't even know there is any $. Dude is jacked up and nothing anyone can say, spend, or do is gonna get him back. There can be no justice.

Let that simmer..................

Good call, Hokie :beerbang

[mstaylor]

I can see suing a company if doesn't perform as designed. LL was sued in this case and the kid was playing in a PAL league. That bat probably had Pony, BR and USSSA on it, why not sue them too? Why not sue the glove company for not catching the ball?

Yes, this is a tragedy but his family insurance, league insurance then disability insurance through the govt is the proper channels. Suing everyone involved in baseball is not the answer. It was a horrible accident but that doesn't mean there is somebody at fault.