Time for Tort Reform? Check this out...

by JWoods 116 Replies latest social current

• 

  JWoods

  I scarcely need to comment on the morals, the physics (or lack thereof), or the implications to society:

  Mont. jury awards $850,000 in aluminum bat lawsuit

  By MATT GOURAS (AP) – 14 hours ago

  HELENA, Mont. — A jury on Wednesday found that the maker of Louisville Slugger baseball bats failed to adequately warn about the dangers the product can pose, awarding a family $850,000 for the 2003 death of their son in a baseball game.

  The family of Brandon Patch argued that aluminum baseball bats are dangerous because they cause the baseball to travel at a greater speed. They contended that their 18-year-old son did not have enough time to react to the ball being struck before it hit him in the head while he was pitching in an American Legion baseball game in Helena in 2003.
• 

  VoidEater

  The problem is not the award (which is usually what is meant when "tort reform" is trotted out), but rather the liability assignment to the manufacturer.

  If the bat had been defective and exploded into shrapnel during use, then product liability could appropriately assigned to the manufacturer in a more clearcut manner. In that case, the award wouldn't phase me in the slightest.

  Next time you want tort reform, think about how much money you'd be willing to settle for in the loss of your child if someone really is to blame in their death.
• 

  JWoods

  I said "tort reform" - not "tort elimination".

  It is indeed strange that the very people who are absolutely sure they can reform and regulate the health and health insurance industry cannot seem to get their arms around reforming such obvious idiocy as the above case.
• 

  SixofNine

  Your issue is a disagreement with the jurors who awarded these damages, it seems to me.
• 

  JWoods

  And of course the judge that allowed it. And the prosecutor who took such a ridiculous case.

  And of course I realize that it will not stand the weight of an appeal.

  The only one I respect here is the baseball bat company for refusing to settle out of court.
• 

  Robdar

  the newspaper article doesn't (and can't) mention the specifics of the case. I do not think the jury would award such a large amount if they didnt believe it was justified.
• 

  Robdar

  The only one I respect here is the baseball bat company for refusing to settle out of court.

  Sorry but your statement is conjecture.

  Not knowing the specifics of the case, you cannot state it was the baseball bat company that refused to settle out of court. it could have been the parents who refused to settle out of court--if a settlement was offered at all.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  This kind of stuff just drives me crazy. I mean, who on earth (other than a caveman!) would have a clue that if you hit something with a bat and that something hits somebody in the head it is likely to cause injury up to and including death? Good grief!!!

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  JWoods

  The "merit" of the case seems to be that the bat company did not issue a warning that a ball could come off an aluminum bat faster than a regulation wooden bat.

  First off, I cannot imagine anybody in this day and age good enough to pitch team hardball that would not already know that. They would also know that the difference is mostly a marginal one - it is not an order of magnitude faster, nor even twice as fast.

  Secondly, what if that bat did have a big yellow sticker on it that said "caution, pitchers, you might get hit by a ball"? Would that have changed things? Really? The kid was going to say in front of his coach and team - sorry, but I am scared to pitch to the kid with an aluminum bat?

  Why didn't they sue the league or the team organization for not banning aluminum bats? Simple - and we all know the answer to this: The baseball bat company had the bigger liability policy.

  It reminds me of the people who want to sue handgun manufacturers because of an accidental shooting, cigarette companies because aunt Sophie got lung cancer, or all those lawsuits in the late 70s over the Porsche 930 Turbo when inexperienced drivers stomped down on them in the rain and lost it in the big way.

  There is a definate liberal tendency to blame someone else (someone percieved to be richer than you are) for all that goes wrong in life. Sometimes, sh*t just happens.
• 

  Robdar

  This kind of stuff just drives me crazy. I mean, who on earth (other than a caveman!) would have a clue that if you hit something with a bat and that something hits somebody in the head it is likely to cause injury up to and including death? Good grief!!!

  By all means, let's wring our hands for the poor baseball bat company who lost $850,000.00 and show absolutely no sympathy for the parents who lost their son or the young man who lost his life. Do, let's get worked up over a newspaper article that says nothing about the actual case itself.