[RomanDad]

Its a standard product liability case. They have to prove the bat MALFUNCTIONED or had an inherently dangerous design....

Obviously the bat didnt malfunction.... It did what it was supposed to do... It smacked the ball... HARD... And sent it flying towards the other players.

So the only remaining argument is that its a dangerous design. I assume they are going to say that the metal bat "amplifies" the power of the hitter and is therefore inappropriate for little league (siting the fact that MLB doesnt allow them... BUT MLB doest allow them because it would ruin the game.... Every hit would be an HR... NOT because of safety concerns.) Of course the counter argument is, the metal bat in little league makes the game better, much like the wood bat in the majors.... It gives young kids the power to actually HIT a run, which most of them LACK without the added "OOMPH" the metal gives them.

I feel sorry for the family, but their is a reverse lottery of life thats played every day, and they lost....

The odds of something like this happening are ASTRONOMICAL... You have a better chance of winning the lottery than taking a line drive in the chest and having it stop your heart....

There are dangers inherent to any activity... Every parent knows when they sign their kids up for little league that they can be beamed in the head by a pitch or a line drive and get seriously injured.... No difference here except the kid took it to the chest and suffered a less than obvious injury inherent to the sport.

And no.... A Precedent for one product doesnt bridge to another.