And, I would also argue that the PR campaign waged against these types of claims by insurance companies seems just as likely to suppress merited lawsuits from being filed because of the stigma attached to them.

come into McDonald’s and drink coffee for hours every day? They will continue to come back no matter what you do until they die just because the old fashioned diners are not as available as they used to be.

The severity of a burn changes really quick as you reach certain temperature threshholds, right? I read this somewhere recently, maybe here at VEB.

That the purchasers and the league didn’t know how dangerous the bat was, but Louisville Slugger did and didn’t notify anyone. I’d have to listen to the evidence to see if they should have prevailed with this argument. But, I know that a jury heard the evidence and came to this conclusion.

Hypothetical, dude. Hypothetical.

I don’t understand why American Legion ball doesn’t require wooden bats. College, too.

how do you know the jury didn’t apportion fault to the parents or the kid who died?

Can’t type today.

But there is a lot that we don’t know about the American Legion’s study. What is a “range of sources?” Are the studies scientifically acceptable? Who funded the studies? Who was on the subcommittee? Etc.

Maybe Louisville Slugger did detailed studies showing that their latest bats made it easier to hit baseballs at harmful speeds and covered them up, or whatever. It’s kind of hard for me to believe, but maybe there was some malice or negligence on their part.
However, it’s also just frustrating that, apparently, no accidents can happen anymore without some sort of payment or punishment.

because the death of a family member creates loss of parental consortium. But that’s not the point. I’m not saying that judges are influencing standards and policy. I’m saying that juries do. As Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." We have standards of conduct, in this case for manufacturing safe productions, and juries enforce the law as to this conduct. A judge will probably reduce this award.

Would nominally absolve the league for damages should the child be hurt during the normal course of activities. That is a signficant reason why the league wasn’t sued when all of this happened. The companies who produced the equipment aren’t covered by this paperwork.

Do I agree with the verdict? No, although I’m not in possession of enough information to form a sufficiently strong opinion. But I will say that this case is akin to a police officer being killed in the line of duty by a criminal using a highly advanced, “off the shelf” firearm that exceeds the capacity of his protective gear, then his family sues the maker of the weapon for damages. I know it’s not exactly the same thing and I know there are additional loopholes involved, but the basic principle is the same.

I find it hard to believe that a bat could be considered so unsafe that its exit speed advantage over normal bats would cause fatal injuries while identical swings from lesser implements would only produce serious trauma, but never be capable of killing a child. And that a tool that dangerous would go un-banned by the league. Also, the question of who provided the overly-powerful bat colors this discussion. If the coach or the league provided the bat against their own rules, it falls back to them. If the parents of the kid who got killed bought the “illegal” bat, then that is doubly damning of them to want to blame someone else for their own negligence.

Just that I understand their inclination to sue.

if the baseball bat was constructed in such a way that it was more likely to kill somebody, then maybe there’s validity.

think about it this way. if standard industry design would give a ball-off-the-bat speed of X, which would make 1 out of every 1000 strikes to the head fatal, and I design a special bat that gives a ball-off-the-bat speed of X+15mph, which would make 1 out of every 200 strikes to the head fatal, I’m balancing increased profits for myself (by making a great bat that will presumably become popular) on the backs of the extra kids who will die.

is it fair that i should be able to do that and owe nothing to those extra kids who die?

you could have voted against any liability. This jury disagreed — after listening to all of the evidence, which you have not done here.

The boy swinging the full sized wooden bat was 5, and he was the next door neighbor.

I wasn’t comparing the situations directly. Obviously there are differences.

It is for the jury to decide if they agree.

I personally don’t think a warning on the packaging of the bat is going to prevent such accidents but this jury found otherwise. Now the company can decide:

1. If it believes that a warning is appropriate and necessary and how it should be implented.
2. Whether it should continue making or marketing bats in this way.

Often a company will decide that it is not worth potential liability to keep making a potentially dangerous product even if they warn of the risks.

You’re already on it.

Unless the defendant has terrible lawyers.

ran a Gladwell article on football and head injuries recently.

Have no precedential value for a variety of reasons. They are as bgh explained based on the specific facts of each case. So for example, if some other kid dies from a similar incident the defendant gets to put on their own defense and is not limited by what happened in the first trial time. Even the judge’s rulings are not precedential except as between the parties in this specific case.

In some very narrow circumstances you can offensively use the outcome of one case against the same defendant but it is very hard to meet this test.

Now, if this case goes up on appeal, the appellate court’s decision will have some precedential value in Montana courts and some persuasive value to other courts (this means it is not binding but something that could be considered in interpreting law). But the issues on appeal are typically very narrow. Here it could be something like whether the jury was properly instructed on the what the law requires for a failure to warn. This could be important but the appellate court seldom reversed the jury’s verdict on appeal. This requires a very high threshold showing, typically that no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff.

in the way prosecutors would enforce a criminal statute related to killing a pregnant women (say, two counts vs. one count of murder).