Master Index of Archived Threads


Bullshit Little League Lawsuit

Nymr83 May 18 2008 01:52 AM

From Fox News: ]WAYNE, N.J. — A New Jersey couple, whose son was struck in the chest with a line drive, is planning to sue the maker of a metal baseball bat used in the game. Two years ago, Steven Domalewski was pitching when the ball slammed into his chest and stopped his heart. He was resuscitated but now has brain damage and is severely disabled. The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them much faster than from wooden bats. The lawsuit will also be filed against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat. An attorney says Domalewski will need millions of dollars worth of medical care for the rest of his life. The bat maker says while it sympathizes with Steven and his family, the bat is not to blame for the injury. If you want to sue the league thats one thing (though i still think you should lose) but to sue the bat maker is just total and utter bullshit and i hope the bat maker not only wins their motion for summary judgment but gets attorneys fees awarded too because the claim is so frivolous. i'm sorry your kid got hurt but its not the bat company's fault.

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2008 02:57 AM Re: Bullshit Little League Lawsuit

Nymr83 wrote: If you want to sue the league thats one thing (though i still think you should lose) but to sue the bat maker is just total and utter bullshit and i hope the bat maker not only wins their motion for summary judgment but gets attorneys fees awarded too because the claim is so frivolous. i'm sorry your kid got hurt but its not the bat company's fault. Wow! You're unusually hostile this morning. I used to think that you reserved your anger just for me, but even brain damaged 12 year olds aren't safe. So why is this lawsuit "utter bullshit"? Is it "utter bullshit" because of the facts specific to this case? Or are you saying that a bat manufacturer can never be liable, no matter what the circumstances? And why does the kid's family have your blessing (lucky for them) to sue the league, when you imply that such a lawsuit is also destined to fail? Or maybe it's bullshit because it's bullshit.

Rockin' Doc May 18 2008 05:43 AM

I sincerely feel sorry for the young man and his family. It is a terrible accident, but I too believe that suing the bat manufacturer, the store that sold it, and the League is frivolous. If the league had required the use of wood bats and the boy had been hit and injured by the barrel of a broken bat they family and their lawyer would likely be filinfg a suit claiming that wood bats are dangerous because they can break and become projectiles. It seems that people are always trying to find someone else to blame for the tragic misfortunes that befall them. Did the parents not realize that virtually all kids use metal bats? Did they not realize that since the pitcher is the closest player to the hitter that pitchers are the most vulnerable to being hit by hard comebackers? If they didn't realize either of these facts, then I feel even more sorry for the boy because he is being raised by parents that aren't very bright. If they did understand the potential dangers, then why did they not take actions before this tragic accident occurred? They could have petitioned the league to require wood bats or they could have said they don't want their son pitching because of the danger, but I assume they did neither. They likely failed to act preemptively to evert the dangers that they willingly subjected their son to because, as I did with my son, they knew the risks involved, but felt the risks of such a tragedy were exceedingly small. Life is full of what I term as assumed risks. The most dangerous thing that most of us do on a regular basis is drive or ride in a car. We know the risks, but we freely choose to get back in the car because doing so makes our life more conveniant, easier, and enjoyable.

Kong76 May 18 2008 06:33 AM

bml: >>>Wow! You're unusually hostile this morning. I used to think that you reserved your anger just for me<<< I think ya both could use a:

willpie May 18 2008 07:01 AM

Maybe they didn't understand that metal bat companies are continually testing and upgrading their alloys and the shapes of their bats to create a bigger and much more powerful sweet spot than a wooden bat could ever dream of having. Metal bats today aren't like the metal bats of the '90s, which weren't like the metal bats of the '80s, which weren't like the metal bats of the '70s. Far from stupid, this was pretty much inevitable. Really, everyone in the bat industry knew this was coming sooner or later. I think most of them figured it would be a dead college kid, though.

Mendoza Line May 18 2008 07:21 AM

Now I'm wondering what it is that wooden bats can dream about. The point that metal bats are more powerful now than they were 20 or 30 years ago is a good one. But even if the bat industry is constantly updating their products to make them more effective (and more dangerous), shouldn't it still be up to Little League to either outlaw metal bats completely or to come up with specs for allowable metal alloys? It's tough to blame the bat industry for producing better bats.

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2008 07:57 AM

="Mendoza Line"]Now I'm wondering what it is that wooden bats can dream about. The point that metal bats are more powerful now than they were 20 or 30 years ago is a good one. But even if the bat industry is constantly updating their products to make them more effective (and more dangerous), shouldn't it still be up to Little League to either outlaw metal bats completely or to come up with specs for allowable metal alloys? It's tough to blame the bat industry for producing better bats. I, for one, wouldn't be in a position to judge the merits of this particular lawsuit, without more facts. But generally speaking, I can envision a scenario under which a bat manufacturer could be held liable for the type of injury suffered by the little leaguer in the top post. If, for example, the bat manufacturer had created a bat that could project a batted ball at an unreasonable rate of speed so as to create a heightened risk over and above the usual risks a person believes they assume when playing baseball, and that the manufacturer was aware of these heightened risks and chose to conceal those risks or worse, to lie about those risks --- well under this scenario, I don't see why a bat manufacturer couldn't be liable. And because I can invent a set of facts under which a bat manufacturer should be held liable, I would be hesitant to call the specific case referred to here as "utter bullshit", without knowing more. As that case is litigated, the relevant facts will be disclosed. For what it's worth, the little leaguer in this case was pitching from a mound that was 45 feet from the plate, instead of 60 feet.

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2008 08:07 AM

Rockin' Doc wrote: If the league had required the use of wood bats and the boy had been hit and injured by the barrel of a broken bat they family and their lawyer would likely be filinfg a suit claiming that wood bats are dangerous because they can break and become projectiles. It would be tougher to prevail here. The risk that you describe is so common to baseball, that the hypothetical injured little leaguer will be deemed to have understood and assumed this particular risk by agreeing to play. An interesting hypothetical case here would involve a little leaguer who never played or watched baseball beforehand, and where the league never explained that particular risk to him. In this hypothetical but unlikely scenario, the little leaguer never underestood that a bat could break, and that the broken part could hurtle through the air and strike him, causing injury. By the way, are there any little leagues that still use wooden bats?

Rockin' Doc May 18 2008 11:03 AM

I can't recall the last time I have seen any youth baseball player (Tee Ball through college) use a wooden bat. The use of metal bats has taken over most of baseball outside of the professional ranks. I know that I never, in all my years of baseball, used a wooden bat after playing Tee ball. My first year of Little League (1970) was when I and every kid on our team converted to metal bats. Due to the proliferation of metal bats in youth baseball, I would imagine that the father of the youth grew up using metal bats, assuming that he played ball as a youth. Anyone that has used metal bats over the years, should be well aware of the fact that they have evolved and improved over the past 30-40 years. Improving their product to meet the demands of the purchasing public is what most companies strive to do. For that reason, it is difficult for me to think that a parent would have absolutely no idea of the risks inherent with playing baseball with metal bats and harder ball. I know that for every team my son played on through the years, I (or my wife) had to sign a consent form acknowledging the potential for injury that he may subject him to through his participation. If I'm not mistaken, my parents generally signed some type of release for me, way back in the dark ages. If these parents signed such a statement, then I don't see how they could possibly hold the league responsible for the tragic injury to their son. As for the bat manufacturers, I may be mistaken, but I thought it was common knowledge that metal bats alllow players to hit the ball much harder for a multitude of reasons. The harder (than wood) surface makes the ball seem to jump of the ball at increase velocity. They are much lighter than a wood bat of comparable size, which allows a player to swing quicker and generate greater bat speed. Basic physics (E=MC2)* tells us that greater bat speed will generate more energy and therefore a greater velocity on the ball being struck. The modern technology and engineering, the sweet spot of a metal bat is larger. It is virtually impossible to get jammed with an metal alloy bat. Even when hit near the handle, the ball can still carry a long way. Unless it can be shown that the bat manufacturer(s) improved their product to willfully make it potentially dangerous, then I personally fail to see how they can be held liable. Should the bat manufacturers have known that improving the bats would increase the potential risk of players of any age? I think common sense would make me think yes. Should parents realize that a metal bats allow players of any age to hit the ball harder and thereby increase the potential for injury? Again, common sense tells me yes. I'm not a lawyer, so do not profess to understand the law in such matters. However, as a former player and the parent of a former player, I fail to see how someone could claim that they were ignorant of the potential risks that sports in general and metal alloy bats in particular pose to participants. I sincerely feel for the young man and his family. I will lift them up in my prayers. If people here want to take up a collection and make a donation to provide for his medical care, I'll gladly donate without hesitation, but I personally fail to see how the bat manufacturer, the stor that sold the bat, or Little League baseball is any more responsible for this tragedy than the parents. *=I don't know how to make C squared. My coding skills aren't that advanced.

Elster88 May 18 2008 11:17 AM

Ugh. Terrible story. Both the poor kid and the dumbass parents.

MFS62 May 18 2008 11:17 AM

More Little League Bullshit: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/16278448/detail.html Later

*62 May 18 2008 01:36 PM

The League I Umpire for allows each parent a $20 refund for completion of one nights service at the concession stand. And I get a free bottled water and a hot dog. As if I would eat a hot dog in the first place.

metsmarathon May 18 2008 01:52 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: I can't recall the last time I have seen any youth baseball player (Tee Ball through college) use a wooden bat. The use of metal bats has taken over most of baseball outside of the professional ranks. I know that I never, in all my years of baseball, used a wooden bat after playing Tee ball. My first year of Little League (1970) was when I and every kid on our team converted to metal bats. Due to the proliferation of metal bats in youth baseball, I would imagine that the father of the youth grew up using metal bats, assuming that he played ball as a youth. Anyone that has used metal bats over the years, should be well aware of the fact that they have evolved and improved over the past 30-40 years. Improving their product to meet the demands of the purchasing public is what most companies strive to do. For that reason, it is difficult for me to think that a parent would have absolutely no idea of the risks inherent with playing baseball with metal bats and harder ball. I know that for every team my son played on through the years, I (or my wife) had to sign a consent form acknowledging the potential for injury that he may subject him to through his participation. If I'm not mistaken, my parents generally signed some type of release for me, way back in the dark ages. If these parents signed such a statement, then I don't see how they could possibly hold the league responsible for the tragic injury to their son. As for the bat manufacturers, I may be mistaken, but I thought it was common knowledge that metal bats alllow players to hit the ball much harder for a multitude of reasons. The harder (than wood) surface makes the ball seem to jump of the ball at increase velocity. They are much lighter than a wood bat of comparable size, which allows a player to swing quicker and generate greater bat speed. Basic physics (E=MC2)* tells us that greater bat speed will generate more energy and therefore a greater velocity on the ball being struck. The modern technology and engineering, the sweet spot of a metal bat is larger. It is virtually impossible to get jammed with an metal alloy bat. Even when hit near the handle, the ball can still carry a long way. Unless it can be shown that the bat manufacturer(s) improved their product to willfully make it potentially dangerous, then I personally fail to see how they can be held liable. Should the bat manufacturers have known that improving the bats would increase the potential risk of players of any age? I think common sense would make me think yes. Should parents realize that a metal bats allow players of any age to hit the ball harder and thereby increase the potential for injury? Again, common sense tells me yes. I'm not a lawyer, so do not profess to understand the law in such matters. However, as a former player and the parent of a former player, I fail to see how someone could claim that they were ignorant of the potential risks that sports in general and metal alloy bats in particular pose to participants. I sincerely feel for the young man and his family. I will lift them up in my prayers. If people here want to take up a collection and make a donation to provide for his medical care, I'll gladly donate without hesitation, but I personally fail to see how the bat manufacturer, the stor that sold the bat, or Little League baseball is any more responsible for this tragedy than the parents. *=I don't know how to make C squared. My coding skills aren't that advanced. can the sporting goods retailer be expected to establish criteria which define to what age groups they will sell certain equipment for which there are no existing regulations, yet willing customers? can the bat manufacturer be expected to establish criteria which define to which age groups they will allow certain equipment to be sold for which there are no existed regulations, yet willing customers? the greatest responsibility falls to the league which should be charged with the safety of its participants. the league (or government) should establish realistic injury criteria for its participants and establish specifications for its equipment which will, to the maximum extent practical, minimize those risks. but there's always going to be one kid too strong who hits a ball too well into the chest of a kid too weak, and then shit happens... also, e=mc^2 describes that if the baseball were to be annihilated and converted into pure energy, it would generate some 14,000,000,000,000,000 Joules, or ten megatons of TNT. KE= (1/2)*m*v^2 describes that the kinetic energy of a bat is equal to one half of its mass times its velocity squared. that doubling the velocity has the same effect on energy output as quadrupling the mass.

TheOldMole May 18 2008 02:47 PM

I didn't know that metal bats had been improved over the years to create a bigger sweet spot and significantly more velocity for a ball coming off the bat. If I picked up a metal bat today, even knowing that (as of now), I would not know how to tell whether it was new or ten years old.

TheOldMole May 18 2008 02:48 PM

And I don't like being Mike Hampton.

bmfc1 May 18 2008 05:52 PM

MFS62 wrote: More Little League Bullshit: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/16278448/detail.html Later What a great field they have--a replica of the "Green Monster", a fence, dugouts--they must use the concession stand to help fund the league. But that doesn't mean you tell a 7 year old that he can't play because his Mom had to work late. That's not fair to the kid, his coach, or the team. They should have told the Mom that she had to work two nights instead of one.

Elster88 May 18 2008 06:03 PM

]If, for example, the bat manufacturer had created a bat that could project a batted ball at an unreasonable rate of speed so as to create a heightened risk over and above the usual risks a person believes they assume when playing baseball, and that the manufacturer was aware of these heightened risks and chose to conceal those risks or worse, to lie about those risks --- well under this scenario, I don't see why a bat manufacturer couldn't be liable. That sounds ridiculous. I'm forced to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

AG/DC May 18 2008 06:46 PM

This is the stuff of lawsuits.

batmagadanleadoff May 18 2008 06:51 PM

Elster88 wrote: ]If, for example, the bat manufacturer had created a bat that could project a batted ball at an unreasonable rate of speed so as to create a heightened risk over and above the usual risks a person believes they assume when playing baseball, and that the manufacturer was aware of these heightened risks and chose to conceal those risks or worse, to lie about those risks --- well under this scenario, I don't see why a bat manufacturer couldn't be liable. That sounds ridiculous. I'm forced to assume you have no idea what you are talking about. What part of the post do you think is ridiculous? Do you think that the hypothetical scenario is ridiculously unlikely? Or do you think that it would be ridiculous to deem a bat manufacturer liable even under my hypothetical scenario? If you answer "ridiculous" to the last sentence, it seems to me that you are saying that a bat manufacturer can never ever be liable, under any circumstances; that a bat manufacturer essentially has carte blanche to put any kind of bat into the stream of commerce and to make whatever claims or representations it feels like making with respect to its' bats, even false and dishonest claims. EDIT: I should add that I have no rooting interest in this lawsuit. To the extent that I have any interest at all here, it's for fairness. So if the evidence ultimately demonstrates that the accident was an unfortunate tragedy and that the defendants did not contribute to the accident, then there shouldn't be any liablility. What I did though, is present a hypothetical set of facts under which a bat manufacturer could be held liable.

Nymr83 May 18 2008 10:37 PM

MFS62 wrote: More Little League Bullshit: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/16278448/detail.html Later thats bullshit too, theres always alot of bullshit surrounding kids sports

soupcan May 19 2008 07:58 AM

Last week in my son's LL game, the pitcher for his team took a searing line drive off the palm of his hand. The kid was in a lot of pain and came out of the game. If the same ball hit him in the face it would've been bad news (seeing the kid's mom one hop the chain link fence almost made the whole incident worthwhile though). The coach's son wears some sort of protective vest when he pitches which the kid says doesn't hamper him at all. My boy has pitched a coupla times. If he does again, I think I'll get him that vest thing. Metal bats - v- wood bats. I don't understand the metal bat thing at this level. These kids by and large honestly do not swing that hard as to splinter a wooden bat. They just don't. Besides the fact that most of them own their own bats anyway. Even so though, a line drive is a line drive and I'm not sure at this level a wooden or metal bat would make that much of a difference. There are inherent dangers in the game (as there are in football and hockey and lacrosse). If you want to be 100% certain that your kid won't get hurt then don't let play. Should it be as safe as possible? Absolutly it should but at the same time it will never be entirely risk free. It's life, it happens.

AG/DC May 19 2008 08:04 AM

Sure, youth sports has to work in terms of risk management and not risk avoidance. But if the data is available and clear (and I'm not stating outright that it is, but I have my opinions), not responding to it is recklessly lazy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 19 2008 08:14 AM

](seeing the kid's mom one hop the chain link fence almost made the whole incident worthwhile though) ? Pictures?

soupcan May 19 2008 08:29 AM

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Pictures? Oh, its not like she's hot (so not actually) or was wearing a short skirt or anything. Just funny to see her shoot up from the stands and hurdle the waist high fence.

Vic Sage May 19 2008 09:48 AM

simply because an activity is risky doesn't absolve all those who profit from it from acting in a responible manner. Aluminum bats are used in HS, college and minors because they are CHEAPER, in the long run, than replacing broken wooden bats. But, in Little League, where the kids are smaller, there must surely be less bat breakage and it would seem likely they may have adopted aluminum for other reasons. Probably, its the league wanting to have parents perceive their kids as performing well (with aluminum bats needing less skill in order to result in more solidly hit baseballs). With the development of metal bats over the years, there may well have come a tipping point. If the bats are more dangerous than a league (much less a LL parent) can reasonably be expected to know or appreciate, then the leagues have to be put on notice that its now come to a point where wooden bats (which have an understood level of risk, and therefore can be reasonably assumed) are now required for use, for the safety of all involved. Leagues won't necessarily do this voluntarily. Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to change things. If bat companies, like cigarette companies, have to put a "skull" and warning on their high-performance models, and if parents demand that leagues don't use such bats below HS age, lives could be saved and a balance of responsiblity with assumption of risk can be obtained. And maybe what we have here are money-grubbing parents looking to find someone to blame for their tragedy... but, instead, maybe we have parents who are couragously trying to change the way things are so other children won't die needlessly, and then their child won't have died in vain. This issue is so NOT bullshit, that calling it bullshit is bullshit. But I expect no less from Namor.

AG/DC May 19 2008 09:56 AM

Well, the child lives on, so that's good. Who else knew before clicking that they were about to read a FOX story? My feeling is that, if it's bullshit, it can be decided in court. The idea that parents should be a national media story just for filing a suit seems more about the agenda of the outlet than about the parents' actions.

Vic Sage May 19 2008 10:11 AM

="AG/DC"]Well, the child lives on, so that's good. Who else knew before clicking that they were about to read a FOX story? My feeling is that, if it's bullshit, it can be decided in court. The idea that parents should be a national media story just for filing a suit seems more about the agenda of the outlet than about the parents' actions. yes, i misspoke. "brain damaged and severly disabled" is better than dead, i suppose... but not necessarily by much, depending on the extent of the brain damage. And i agree with you totally about the source of the story.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2008 10:36 AM

Vic Sage wrote: This issue is so NOT bullshit, that calling it bullshit is bullshit. Thank you. Plus I owe you for Wee Willie Small Balls, which I've been using ever since.

Nymr83 May 19 2008 12:30 PM

its is bullshit to sue the bat company. if the bats arent safe enough for kids at a certain age then the LEAGUE needs to ban them. you don't sue the scissor company when your kid's nursery school decides to hand out non-safety scissors and the kid cuts himself

AG/DC May 19 2008 12:35 PM

What do we know, really? Do we know if the bat manufacturers mis-represent themselves to the customers? That's why we have courts.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2008 03:09 PM

I didn't know that aluminum bats were designated as safety bats and non-safety bats, like scissors are.

Vic Sage May 19 2008 03:58 PM

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="Vic Sage"]This issue is so NOT bullshit, that calling it bullshit is bullshit. Thank you. Plus I owe you for Wee Willie Small Balls, which I've been using ever since. That's "WWSB (R)", thank you very much.

Kong76 May 19 2008 04:11 PM

Isn't Wee from last year? Mags has only been around 5-6 weeks. Hmmmm.

Vic Sage May 19 2008 04:20 PM

I think i started WWSB when Willie got hired, based on quotes about his managerial philosophy. But i don't remember exactly when.

AG/DC May 19 2008 04:48 PM

He picked it up last month or so.

Willets Point May 19 2008 04:57 PM

Is the Bullshit Little League a step down from the Bush League?

Kong76 May 19 2008 05:18 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 19 2008 05:19 PM

Not that it adds much to the thread, but in the last softball league that I was in before I hung up the cleats we had a list of about a half-dozen bat models that were banned from use. One of the reasons I retired was the game got too fast for me at first base with mid 20's guys getting up with $200 bats and whizzing softball bullets past my head.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2008 05:18 PM

KC wrote: Isn't Wee from last year? Mags has only been around 5-6 weeks. Hmmmm. I picked it up about a week ago from reading one of Vic's posts. Funny stuff.

Kong76 May 19 2008 05:20 PM

Ah.