[NA]Juries[NA]

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,264
Location
west Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Taylor
Is this proof juries simply feel sympathy for victims of bad happenings and don't really care about justice?

(Jury finds no fault with product, but still award victims huge sum of money.)

BTW, baseball is a violently dangerous game and should be outlawed or regulated to death.
 
What an idiotic decision. I doubt it will be upheld on appeal.

I feel bad for the kid, of course. But as a former pitcher, I can say that I knew very well by the age of 18 the dangers of being hit by a batted ball -- regardless of what the bat was made of. That's the nature of the game, and it's one reason why baseball, statistically speaking, is among the more dangerous sports. (I wonder if the batter was also sued for hitting the ball too hard.)

On a related note, I bought Halloween costumes for four kids this past week (my two goddaughters and their younger siblings). I was both amused and saddened by the warning labels on the costumes and other paraphernalia, including:

  • A warning on a witch's hat and broom combo warning that they didn't enable the user to fly.
  • A warning on some grease face make-up that it shouldn't be applied to more than five percent of the body, nor should it be ignited before being applied.
  • A warning on a pair of vampire fangs that "these fangs are not denture devices and must be removed from the mouth before eating."
  • A warning on a rubber severed limb that it was for "novelty use" and "should not be used for medical purposes."
-Rich
 
The jury didn't say there was no fault with the product. The jury specifically found that there were not adequate warnings given.

You can certainly criticize that finding (and I would agree, but I also didn't hear the evidence presented at trial), but it's not accurate to say that there were no findings of "fault" or the like.
 
What an idiotic decision. I doubt it will be upheld on appeal.

Who knows. It sounds as if the verdict was based on a lack of warning - and whether the verdict stands or not will depend on the state's law (generally common law) regarding warnings.

I feel bad for the kid, of course. But as a former pitcher, I can say that I knew very well by the age of 18 the dangers of being hit by a batted ball -- regardless of what the bat was made of. That's the nature of the game, and it's one reason why baseball, statistically speaking, is among the more dangerous sports. (I wonder if the batter was also sued for hitting the ball too hard.)

You'd think that the legal doctrine of "assumption of risk" would apply. But, again, that depends on the specific state's law - does an injured person's assumption of risk trump any duty that a tortfeasor has? If so, it could be argued that you assume the risk of injury every time step out your door, and that no one is thus ever at fault for anything.

On a related note, I bought Halloween costumes for four kids this past week (my two goddaughters and their younger siblings). I was both amused and saddened by the warning labels on the costumes and other paraphernalia, including:

  • A warning on a witch's hat and broom combo warning that they didn't enable the user to fly.
  • A warning on some grease face make-up that it shouldn't be applied to more than five percent of the body, nor should it be ignited before being applied.
  • A warning on a pair of vampire fangs that "these fangs are not denture devices and must be removed from the mouth before eating."
  • A warning on a rubber severed limb that it was for "novelty use" and "should not be used for medical purposes."
-Rich

And this is what verdicts for "failure to warn" have resulted in. How many times do you read these warnings? They're literally all over the place - they're simply not effective.

Frankly, I'd say that the plethora of warnings results in something of a "boy crying wolf scenario" - there are some things for which the warnings should be read. But, they're not, because we kind of condition ourselves to overlook them after being bombarded with so many worthless ones.
 
"The company said it's not sure what it means beyond that because the jury also decided there was nothing wrong with the product."

Whoever is speaking for the company has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Seriously.

The verdict was the result of failure to adequately warn. Sure, that means there was nothing physically wrong with the bat (e.g., it didn't explode into dangerous aluminum shrapnel when used). But, it's simply deceptive, and an absolute misrepresentation, to say that there's nothing wrong with the product. What was wrong, according to the jury, was that there were not adequate warnings about the product - which is, in the eyes of law, a serious problem. As evidenced by the amount of the verdict.

Here's my advice - whenever you've got a quote from any party to a court case, be it a prosecutor/plaintiff/defendant, take it with a grain of salt if you take it at all.

It's not really important to the merits of whether this verdict was appropriate - but it certainly tells me something about how this case was conducted by whoever makes the Louisville Slugger.

Anyway, I never really liked aluminum baseball bats. I didn't like the sound they made, they didn't seem as "pure," and I thought that if you needed a piece of equipment to improve your play, you weren't that good to begin with.

Baseball isn't a real sport anyway. Just like someone who "plays" it to file a suit over getting hurt. :p
 
Last edited:
I think David is rightly, considering his training, arguing from the standpoint of the legal perspective (which is indeed the jury's duty) but we are looking at it from a non-legal, lay person's and I might add, a common sense standpoint.
 
I think David is rightly, considering his training, arguing from the standpoint of the legal perspective (which is indeed the jury's duty) but we are looking at it from a non-legal, lay person's and I might add, a common sense standpoint.

Of course, agreed on all counts. But truly, is there anyone who plays baseball who isn't aware that the purpose of a baseball bat is to enable the batter to propel a dense, hard, spherical object at high velocity? So what's the warning supposed to say: "Warning: This product accomplishes its intended use very well?"

I dunno. Seems silly to me.

-Rich
 
Of course, agreed on all counts. But truly, is there anyone who plays baseball who isn't aware that the purpose of a baseball bat is to enable the batter to propel a dense, hard, spherical object at high velocity? So what's the warning supposed to say: "Warning: This product accomplishes its intended use very well?"
I dunno. Seems silly to me.
-Rich

Complete agreement here. Look forward to a whole new spate of stupid warning labels on sporting goods.....which will accomplish NOTHING.

The paradox I see in this whole thing is that, I said above, it seems like common sense that we all know our activities have risk and accept that, and think there should be no penalty to the manufacturer in such cases...but then the commoner (the jury ie you and I) vote the other way and give the victim undeserved millions!
 
The issue here is the law and jurisprudence, not common sense.

I guess we will have to disagree, because I did bring up the application of common sense to the issue, and that is something I am interested in here.
 
I think David is rightly, considering his training, arguing from the standpoint of the legal perspective (which is indeed the jury's duty) but we are looking at it from a non-legal, lay person's and I might add, a common sense standpoint.

Correct.

From a common-sense perspective, I agree with you - one of those "are you effing kidding me" type things.

[edit:] But, from a legal perspective, there is a "duty to warn." I've forgotten exactly what it is and how it works, but the basic idea is that a manufacturer is in a better position to know the risks than is a consumer.

Regardless, there are such things as "open and obvious" dangers (like great big hole in the ground surrounded by a fence) that don't need warnings - it's obviously dangerous.

I expect that, on appeal, this will be determined to be one of those types of issues. I mean, duh. Pitchers get hit by baseballs. Open and obvious, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I never really liked aluminum baseball bats. I didn't like the sound they made, they didn't seem as "pure,"

ahh but the wooden ones can split, sending a oak spear into the outfield! :D
incidentally I prefer the wooden ones too.
 
Pathetic.
I mean, they could have gone after the manufacturers of the ball, too! :rolleyes:


Seriously, a line drive hardball to the noggin can kill you, regardless of what bat it was struck with. Whatever the law may stipulate about warning labels, nobody could convince me that one needs the expertise and experience of a baseball bat manufacturer to understand this. It seems unlikely that anyone who's ever heard of baseball, and knows what a hardball is and what a bat is, could fail to understand this.
I'm confident that the plaintiffs understood these things, even before the accident. As did the person injured, and the batter. And they attained this understanding- gasp!- without warning labels.

The whole case stinks of pure greed (and I don't just mean the lawyers), and it's yet another blow against personal accountabilty and parental responsibility. Right up there with the "bucket baby" (see attached)... just makes me angry.


These labels will not improve safety, because their presence proves that there is stupidity more powerful than any possible prevention. Stupid people rarely heed warnings of any kind.
Even if the labels magically raise consciousness of the hazards, there will still be accidents... with baseballs, buckets, ladders, Halloween costumes, and airplanes. Most of those accidents, as usual, will not be the fault of the people who make these things. Some of them won't even be the fault of those handling these things.
As for wasting courts' time... let's just say greed and stupidity often go hand in hand.

A final thought: if the law is to be separate from common sense, does the law make any sense?
 

Attachments

  • BucketWarning.jpg
    BucketWarning.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
The jury didn't say there was no fault with the product. The jury specifically found that there were not adequate warnings given.

You can certainly criticize that finding (and I would agree, but I also didn't hear the evidence presented at trial), but it's not accurate to say that there were no findings of "fault" or the like.
All true.

This is also one in a long line of liability cases involving aluminum bats. They are sold with the goal of making average hitters hit better. Many believe that they are more dangerous than wooden bats. This is where it gets difficult to sort the legal from the science. There are accusations and data, but no real study has been able to provide a definitive answer. These court cases then get all caught up in legal wranglings and not actually finding out if AL bats are more, less, or the same danger level as wooden ones.
 
When I see cases like this I have to wonder if it was the family's idea to sue or the lawyer's.
 
When I see cases like this I have to wonder if it was the family's idea to sue or the lawyer's.

I wasn't aware that it was either the family or the lawyer determining the verdict. :rolleyes:
 
When I see cases like this I have to wonder if it was the family's idea to sue or the lawyer's.


Without knowing the answer to your question, I offer my observation that the legalization of lawyer advertising is perhaps the worst blight on the profession of law that has ever come to pass.

On those rare occasions when you are stuck at home during the day (I say "rare," because this group is, as a rule, productive, and thus unlikely to be sitting around on its collective backsides very frequently), watch the advertising on television, and marvel at the volume and chutzpah of lawyer advertising.

It's a form of lottery.
 
This verdict is simply a product of the continued decline and fall of our society, country, government, and legal system... Our people demand (and the courts deliver) cradle to grave hand holding... No one is responsible for their decisions or actions - it is the bats' fault!

While we can discuss it here and ridicule this jury (rightfully) and scorn this judge for accepting this verdict (more than rightfully) this trial and this verdict is corrosive, it eats at the fabric of society...

This judgment, whether it stands on appeal or nor, raises the cost of making bats... That cost will be tacked onto the price of the bats (not just metal, all bats)... Some schools will drop baseball from their sports... Some little leagues will end up priced out of the game because parents cannot afford the now higher priced bats, helmets, batting gloves, spiked shoes, etc. and the higher insurance premiums.. Some of these young folks who would have been absorbed in sports while they get through the dangerous years of development will be at loose ends on the streets in the summer... A small percentage of those kids who would have been playing ball will wind up on prison or dead because they did not have that sports program to keep them focused until their brains matured...

It is not just this one verdict - it is every bad decision made by society... The jobs that our grandfathers had are gone because society is now overtly hostile to manufacturing plants, and coal mines, and steel mills... High schools no longer teach machine shop, and welding, and tinsmith so these kids, who are not university inclined, come out of school with no marketable skill and no jobs... Farms are being shut down because the yuppies who moved to the country and built big houses file lawsuits over cow herds, and tractors, and combines making noise, dust, and odor...

The waterslide park in my city shut down, not becuse of a lack of customers, - this was the premier attraction in a rust belt city in June, July, and August - but because the hundreds of thousands of dollars demanded by the liability insurance company exceed their gross receipts for the year... Why did the insurance company demand such an exorbitant premium? Because juries hand out multimillion dollar sympathy awards like popcorn...

Every decision has consequences... Shut down the mill because folks don't like the smoke stack - your grandchild grows up in a rusting mill town with no jobs and no future... Sue the bat maker, and maybe he lays off ten people to cover his costs... Rome fell, not because the barbarians raced intot he city that day, but because of generations of Roman society doing exactly what WE are doing, today...

And don't even think of getting me started on the Cory Liddle crash...

denny-o
 
Denny:

What you said.

/s/ Spike
 
This verdict is simply a product of the continued decline and fall of our society, country, government, and legal system... Our people demand (and the courts deliver) cradle to grave hand holding... No one is responsible for their decisions or actions - it is the bats' fault!

While we can discuss it here and ridicule this jury (rightfully) and scorn this judge for accepting this verdict (more than rightfully) this trial and this verdict is corrosive, it eats at the fabric of society...

This judgment, whether it stands on appeal or nor, raises the cost of making bats... That cost will be tacked onto the price of the bats (not just metal, all bats)... Some schools will drop baseball from their sports... Some little leagues will end up priced out of the game because parents cannot afford the now higher priced bats, helmets, batting gloves, spiked shoes, etc. and the higher insurance premiums.. Some of these young folks who would have been absorbed in sports while they get through the dangerous years of development will be at loose ends on the streets in the summer... A small percentage of those kids who would have been playing ball will wind up on prison or dead because they did not have that sports program to keep them focused until their brains matured...

It is not just this one verdict - it is every bad decision made by society... The jobs that our grandfathers had are gone because society is now overtly hostile to manufacturing plants, and coal mines, and steel mills... High schools no longer teach machine shop, and welding, and tinsmith so these kids, who are not university inclined, come out of school with no marketable skill and no jobs... Farms are being shut down because the yuppies who moved to the country and built big houses file lawsuits over cow herds, and tractors, and combines making noise, dust, and odor...

The waterslide park in my city shut down, not becuse of a lack of customers, - this was the premier attraction in a rust belt city in June, July, and August - but because the hundreds of thousands of dollars demanded by the liability insurance company exceed their gross receipts for the year... Why did the insurance company demand such an exorbitant premium? Because juries hand out multimillion dollar sympathy awards like popcorn...

Every decision has consequences... Shut down the mill because folks don't like the smoke stack - your grandchild grows up in a rusting mill town with no jobs and no future... Sue the bat maker, and maybe he lays off ten people to cover his costs... Rome fell, not because the barbarians raced intot he city that day, but because of generations of Roman society doing exactly what WE are doing, today...

And don't even think of getting me started on the Cory Liddle crash...

denny-o

Amen.
 
This verdict is simply a product of the continued decline and fall of our society, country, government, and legal system... Our people demand (and the courts deliver) cradle to grave hand holding... No one is responsible for their decisions or actions - it is the bats' fault!

While we can discuss it here and ridicule this jury (rightfully) and scorn this judge for accepting this verdict (more than rightfully) this trial and this verdict is corrosive, it eats at the fabric of society...

This judgment, whether it stands on appeal or nor, raises the cost of making bats... That cost will be tacked onto the price of the bats (not just metal, all bats)... Some schools will drop baseball from their sports... Some little leagues will end up priced out of the game because parents cannot afford the now higher priced bats, helmets, batting gloves, spiked shoes, etc. and the higher insurance premiums.. Some of these young folks who would have been absorbed in sports while they get through the dangerous years of development will be at loose ends on the streets in the summer... A small percentage of those kids who would have been playing ball will wind up on prison or dead because they did not have that sports program to keep them focused until their brains matured...

It is not just this one verdict - it is every bad decision made by society... The jobs that our grandfathers had are gone because society is now overtly hostile to manufacturing plants, and coal mines, and steel mills... High schools no longer teach machine shop, and welding, and tinsmith so these kids, who are not university inclined, come out of school with no marketable skill and no jobs... Farms are being shut down because the yuppies who moved to the country and built big houses file lawsuits over cow herds, and tractors, and combines making noise, dust, and odor...

The waterslide park in my city shut down, not becuse of a lack of customers, - this was the premier attraction in a rust belt city in June, July, and August - but because the hundreds of thousands of dollars demanded by the liability insurance company exceed their gross receipts for the year... Why did the insurance company demand such an exorbitant premium? Because juries hand out multimillion dollar sympathy awards like popcorn...

Every decision has consequences... Shut down the mill because folks don't like the smoke stack - your grandchild grows up in a rusting mill town with no jobs and no future... Sue the bat maker, and maybe he lays off ten people to cover his costs... Rome fell, not because the barbarians raced intot he city that day, but because of generations of Roman society doing exactly what WE are doing, today...

And don't even think of getting me started on the Cory Liddle crash...

denny-o

I'd be very interested to know what all of that's based on.
 
Required reading for all juries.

Not directed at you, but at society in general: Remember that the next time you get a juror summons.

A jury is the manner by which society gets to decide what behavior will and will not be tolerated in a particular community. I've seen juries acquit on serious felony crimes (for example, shooting at a cop after a home invasion) that were, in my opinion, unacquittable - and then I looked at where I was, and understood why it was the way it was a little bit better.

So, keep that in mind - a jury is how the community decides what it will and won't tolerate. While the jury has to do that within the law, that's something of paying lip service to the law - jury verdicts rarely get overturned (damages can be reduced, but that's a different story that I'm not going to get into).
 
Generic label:

Warning
Stupidity can lead to harmful results, up to and including death, dismemberment, and public ridicule.
 
Regarding the bucket labels in this post, how does a manufacturer decide which "non-intended use / activities" should be warned against?

If I drive with the bucket over my head and get in an accident because I couldn't see, should I sue? Should that require a warning label?

What about using the bucket as a step stool? It's not intended for use as a ladder, so should there be a warning about that, too?

Adults also shouldn't use the bucket as a bathtub--they might become inextricably stuck.

Common sense is sadly commonly lacking these days, at least in jury pools.
 
Back
Top