Parents to Sue Maker of Metal Baseball Bats Over Son's Injury

[1buba]

Parents to Sue Maker of Metal Baseball Bats Over Son's Injury

Saturday, May 17, 2008

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.

Ok, RD has proven I'm borderline brain-dead on legal matters. I'm just wondering about this case. IF it ended up going to trial (the bat manufacturing part) and they found the bat maker had no role - would this be precedent help the gun makers? Just curious if 1) it is possible, 2) is it probable.

[akulahawk]

Inherent risk of the game. Are they suing the kid that hit the ball for causing the disability?

[FiringLion]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

Inherent risk of the game. Are they suing the kid that hit the ball for wrongful death?

"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."

Suing for wrongful death when the Pt is still alive is a new one on me...

[akulahawk]

Actually, and for me too... Oops. Forgot the kid is still alive.



eta: Fixed it... Thanks!

[FiringLion]

'sawright.
After all, thi'z the legal section of a Glock forum after all, not so much a medicine forum.

[akulahawk]

1B: my feeling in this matter is that although you can sue someone for dang near anything, a suit of this kind would probably not stand. The ball played a role, the pitcher played a role, the batter played a big role, the bat played a role, and the "victim" also played a role. If any component of that chain done something a little different, there could have been a different outcome. I doubt that the specific injury was realistically forseeable beyond the normal inherent risks that all players have while playing the game.

Likewise, I doubt that a similar action against a firearms manufacturer would stand for similar reasons. They make firearms. They sell them to dealers. Dealer sells to a person who passes a background check. Etc... so the manufacturer is liable because somewhere down the line, the firearm gets stolen and is used in a crime?

[sealbeach]

metal bats are not exactly a "new" technology, they have been around for decades--yep, playing baseball has inherent risks, you would have trouble convincing a jury that they had no clue baseball was dangerous. Their hope may be however to get a sympathetic jury who awards damages just because the plaintiff is such a pitiful wreck, and they see the mfg of the bats as having deep pockets (actually the insurance company of the bat mfg.).

bummer, sorry for the kid and the family---and the bat company, and the coach, and the rest of the team, and the other team,, sob, sob, sob...

[FiringLion]

Another possibility: perhaps the insurer declines full support unless and until the insured (in this case the parents) exhaust alternate claims.

[Mtn. Medic]

No different than trying to sue Ford Motor Company for damages caused by drunk drivers.

[1buba]

I agree with all of your posts... But where you state guns (or cars), you can replace it with gun and the sentence would mean the same. That's my point.

Akula,
I agree that you can sue for anything, but we've also seen the courts rule for the plaintiff on some fairy tale suits. That's why I'm curious about this.

[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.

[tango-52]

Having been involved with Little League for many years (parent, coach, manager, umpire, league equipment manager, board member) I can assure you that stuff happens and kids and adults get hurt. That is why each league has insurance. Also, there is equipment available on the market if parents have a concern about this exact accident. It is chest armor that a kid can wear. Of course, he (or she) looks like a dork and would catch grief from the other kids. But it is available. Also, the kid that was injured was pitching, and therefore was not in a good fielding position when the ball was hit. The worst one I ever saw was a pitcher took a line shot in the crotch. All the men watching screamed! It split his cup. The parents took him to the hospital and all he had was some minor bruising. So protective gear does work.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by tango-52

Having been involved with Little League for many years (parent, coach, manager, umpire, league equipment manager, board member) I can assure you that stuff happens and kids and adults get hurt. That is why each league has insurance. Also, there is equipment available on the market if parents have a concern about this exact accident. It is chest armor that a kid can wear. Of course, he (or she) looks like a dork and would catch grief from the other kids. But it is available. Also, the kid that was injured was pitching, and therefore was not in a good fielding position when the ball was hit. The worst one I ever saw was a pitcher took a line shot in the crotch. All the men watching screamed! It split his cup. The parents took him to the hospital and all he had was some minor bruising. So protective gear does work.

Exactly... Their better suit may be against the league itself for failing to warn them of the dangers and/or provide/require protective gear to prevent the harm... The bat seems to be incidental to the injury.... Why not sue the maker of the BALL because it could have been made of NURF, and none of this would have happened?

My guess is, they arent suing the league because they WERE warned, and maybe the league's insurance caps them at less money than they want... (if there WERE a case here, which there ISNT, the damages would be HUGE!!!!)

Its one of those "life aint fair" moments.

[1buba]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

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

Oh well...

[Ken_In_Colo]

A common injury which would have happened with a wooden bat too. 'Softer' balls were tested but just for this type of injury. It was found that the softer ones increased the size of the impact area by expanding (sort of like a JHP) with little lessening of the speed off the bat.

I don't see a connection to guns on this one though.