Jump to content


Woman hit, badly injured by bat shard at Royals game


heat84
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6284350

 

 

The main issue is the time it took for her to get help, but I hope she sues MLB for billions of dollars for allowing players to use those maple bats(Which it was).

 

I still think wooden bats shouldn't be used period. Wooden bats aren't "green". I'm not saying go to aluminum. Maybe carbon fiber(there is such a thing as carbon fiber baseball bats). The baseball itself was changed 80 or 90 years ago and the game has been just fine. So I don't wanna hear that argument about bats either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Without looking at Missouri case law, judges are typically predisposed to leave baseball alone and not try to interfere with how the game is played. With that in mind, the suit about the bats would probably be a tough one to make out. Also, you almost always consent to the inherent risks of the game by buying a ticket and attending a game, so the initial injury from the shard likely fails to state a claim for relief.

 

However, the 45 minutes thing, without knowing more of the facts, could support a claim of negligence against the Royals. It would depend on if they have a legal duty to provide due care to a patron once that patron has been injured (my gut feeling would be that they do), and if yes, then was their conduct reasonable in the circumstances (i.e. were there viable reasons why it would take 45 minutes instead of some shorter amount of time that it "should" take).

 

She will also likely have to prove that the delay actually exacerbated her physical injuries, since there probably is not a claim for anything like Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, based on the facts of the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there usually a waiver written in legal jargon on the back of the ticket?

 

 

Yes. But they aren't binding on a court in all cases; for example, you can't say "We are not responsible for any injuries related to balls, bats, the stadium falling apart, your seat breaking, scalding hot coffee, food poisoning from concession, etc."

 

Sure, the first 2 will usually work (the court's argument goes something like "you assumed the risk by going to the game, so you have no recourse for 'ordinary' impacts of bats and balls); however, in many situations, you simply can't disclaim those other types of liability, regardless of what it says on the back of the ticket. If it's not clear why this is so, think about this situation: you're working with a personal trainer, and you sign a contract. While he might be able to contract away some liabilities related to, for example, work-out-related injuries, he can't also say, "And I have no liability if I put you on a machine that I knew was dangerous and negligently failed to maintain, and I have no [civil] liability if I shoot you in the face." At the very least, these provisions would have to have been made extraordinarily clear on the contract to have any chance of standing up, and even then, they'd normally be invalidated for "public policy" reasons.

 

Another little tidbit: those disclaimers on your parking stub when you park in a public lot that says they have no liability if your car is broken into.............almost never valid in a court of law. Same goes for the warnings in hotels about putting your valuables in a safe; if a hotel staff member steals your thing, they are liable to you. Similar, warning on the back of trucks (i.e. stay 500 feet back) are, at the very least, not dispositive of any civil claims; they are all just used to scare you. If you're more careful, then you'll have fewer losses to sue them over. Also, many people don't even bother pursuing such claims because they think they have no chance given those "waivers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there usually a waiver written in legal jargon on the back of the ticket?

 

 

Yes. But they aren't binding on a court in all cases; for example, you can't say "We are not responsible for any injuries related to balls, bats, the stadium falling apart, your seat breaking, scalding hot coffee, food poisoning from concession, etc."

 

Sure, the first 2 will usually work (the court's argument goes something like "you assumed the risk by going to the game, so you have no recourse for 'ordinary' impacts of bats and balls); however, in many situations, you simply can't disclaim those other types of liability, regardless of what it says on the back of the ticket. If it's not clear why this is so, think about this situation: you're working with a personal trainer, and you sign a contract. While he might be able to contract away some liabilities related to, for example, work-out-related injuries, he can't also say, "And I have no liability if I put you on a machine that I knew was dangerous and negligently failed to maintain, and I have no [civil] liability if I shoot you in the face." At the very least, these provisions would have to have been made extraordinarily clear on the contract to have any chance of standing up, and even then, they'd normally be invalidated for "public policy" reasons.

 

Another little tidbit: those disclaimers on your parking stub when you park in a public lot that says they have no liability if your car is broken into.............almost never valid in a court of law. Same goes for the warnings in hotels about putting your valuables in a safe; if a hotel staff member steals your thing, they are liable to you. Similar, warning on the back of trucks (i.e. stay 500 feet back) are, at the very least, not dispositive of any civil claims; they are all just used to scare you. If you're more careful, then you'll have fewer losses to sue them over. Also, many people don't even bother pursuing such claims because they think they have no chance given those "waivers."

 

Lol, I can recall that story on the parking ticket stub from Professor Segal at UM on my first day of class.

 

"But it says right there that they're not liable!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you all, but I really do love how Misterkol drops legal stuff into half the threads on here.

 

 

You make me blush.

It's good practice for me, honestly, and it makes me feel good about myself :lol

 

Lol, I can recall that story on the parking ticket stub from Professor Segal at UM on my first day of class.

 

"But it says right there that they're not liable!!"

 

 

Is you a lawyerz too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanesCop - where in NC are you? I'm in Durham for school (Duke).

 

 

Towards Greensboro, a city south of it.

 

I actually get along with most of the Defense attorneys here, our Prosecutors can be hard to deal with. I understand lawyers have a job like anyone else, but there are ways to win without getting personal and the majority of ours dont have that problem which is nice.

 

 

Has there been any updates on the Lady's condition. Baseball is stuck in heritage and has a problem making changes. If it is something as simple as banning Maple bats then so be it. Start simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you all, but I really do love how Misterkol drops legal stuff into half the threads on here.

 

 

You make me blush.

It's good practice for me, honestly, and it makes me feel good about myself :lol

 

Lol, I can recall that story on the parking ticket stub from Professor Segal at UM on my first day of class.

 

"But it says right there that they're not liable!!"

 

 

Is you a lawyerz too?

 

naw - considered it for a while as undergrad, took some Business Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cops hate lawyers.................................Ha Just kidding.

 

Some are pretty crappy but i dont have a problem with the majority up here. We deal with criminal law so we dont have much training on Civil stuff. Florida's laws im sure are different then NC anyway.

 

And people hate cops...................... NO JUST JOKING, WE LOVE OFFICERS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha sure, most people love us when they need us , then hate us after they broke the law. Its sad that a few corrupt cops make it rough for the rest us. Most of us are just trying to make a living the best way we know how and dont pretend were anything more then the average joe. I try to leave people alone as long as there not endagering other peoples lives and taking their habits on the street. Its the soccer moms tavelling 60 in a 35 while talking on a cellphone with 4 kids in the back that scares me. You normally get 15 over speed limit before you get stopped, and thats plenty fast. One thing about the job you see the best and worse of people, for better or worse.

 

As far as this story, i want to know what why it took 45 minutes and what the reason is.

 

Off topic but id like to know the reason for the dodgers-giants beatdown. Its prerrg sad you cant go to opposing stadium without get assaulted. Im sure thats not the whole story though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha sure, most people love us when they need us , then hate us after they broke the law. Its sad that a few corrupt cops make it rough for the rest us. Most of us are just trying to make a living the best way we know how and dont pretend were anything more then the average joe. I try to leave people alone as long as there not endagering other peoples lives and taking their habits on the street. Its the soccer moms tavelling 60 in a 35 while talking on a cellphone with 4 kids in the back that scares me. You normally get 15 over speed limit before you get stopped, and thats plenty fast. One thing about the job you see the best and worse of people, for better or worse.

 

As far as this story, i want to know what why it took 45 minutes and what the reason is.

 

I agree with just about all of this.

 

I'm still mad at the cop who gave me a ticket for a no turn on red, though. It as 2AM on an empty street, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha sure, most people love us when they need us , then hate us after they broke the law. Its sad that a few corrupt cops make it rough for the rest us. Most of us are just trying to make a living the best way we know how and dont pretend were anything more then the average joe. I try to leave people alone as long as there not endagering other peoples lives and taking their habits on the street. Its the soccer moms tavelling 60 in a 35 while talking on a cellphone with 4 kids in the back that scares me. You normally get 15 over speed limit before you get stopped, and thats plenty fast. One thing about the job you see the best and worse of people, for better or worse.

 

As far as this story, i want to know what why it took 45 minutes and what the reason is.

 

I agree with just about all of this.

 

I'm still mad at the cop who gave me a ticket for a no turn on red, though. It as 2AM on an empty street, man.

*troll* But it's the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...