He should have sued the ball maker instead of the bat – just kidding! I think we can all agree that there’s a time and place for holding manufacturers responsible for defective products. I see no point in holding a manufacturer responsible for inherently dangerous products which are free of defect, and used for their intended purpose.
Participating in sports involves increased risk, just as sometimes being a spectator does. This suit doesn’t seem to make any sense, yet the lower court not only allowed it, but granted $1M? ? ?
Even in the case of a broken wooden bat splintering and spearing someone (as has occurred) what makes the manufacturer negligent unless their bats are proven to be more dangerous than the average bat? Shouldn’t all bats and all balls carry a warning printed directly on the ball? That’s how rediculous our legal system has become – tons of labels no one reads until someone sues!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
He should have sued the ball maker instead of the bat – just kidding! I think we can all agree that there’s a time and place for holding manufacturers responsible for defective products. I see no point in holding a manufacturer responsible for inherently dangerous products which are free of defect, and used for their intended purpose.
Participating in sports involves increased risk, just as sometimes being a spectator does. This suit doesn’t seem to make any sense, yet the lower court not only allowed it, but granted $1M? ? ?
Even in the case of a broken wooden bat splintering and spearing someone (as has occurred) what makes the manufacturer negligent unless their bats are proven to be more dangerous than the average bat? Shouldn’t all bats and all balls carry a warning printed directly on the ball? That’s how rediculous our legal system has become – tons of labels no one reads until someone sues!