Montana is a cultural backwater. I care only about stories regarding my beloved metropolis New York City. Nowhere else can I use my obscene wealth to barricade myself off from the world's uneducated indigents.

At this point, the dangers of aluminum bats are pretty well known. A failure to warn claim is silly.

Obviously they went after the deep pockets. The danger of the bat is embedded in baseball. If anyone has an obligation to warn, it is the baseball league.

Elie, are there warnings on your deep fried pork rind packages?

2, who is that picture of? Big Sky=Big time money, but your wealth is only obscene enough in the NYC area whereas people who own tons of land in Montana are disgusted with their mutli-million dollar apartments on the UES, and only travel to the city when they absolutely have to.

400 milliseconds is hardly enough time to read a warning label.

Jake Emeritus...backwater...barricade....uneducated.........wow those words are so interconnected!

Warning: using a knife may lead to cutting things.

Warning: falling off a ladder may lead to injury.

Warning: laying down in the street may lead to getting run over.

Warning: Excessive use of warning labels may contribute to the idiocy of America.

How the hell would a warning on the bat, which was in the possession of the other team, have made any difference to the pitcher's conduct?
Until you prove that he a) actually would have known of the warning, b) would have changed his conduct based on the warning like he wouldn't have pitched to the batter if he had known the potential bat speed, or that he would have pitched a steady stream of change ups and curve balls to limit the resulting speed of the batted ball, then this is the most absurd verdict.
There is however an argument that could be made that pitchers should be required to wear a reinforced hat or helmet John Olerud style given the obvious risk of a short reaction time for a batted ball from 60 ft and maybe the league could be liable for that, but to put the bat maker on the hook is for failure to warn is disturbing.

Runaway juries and arbitrary verdicts? Happens all the time in this country.

I think Elie is an idiot.

(1) Who would read this supposed warning? The batter? The batter's mother? If I am a hitter and am told to "be careful, because this bat hits balls really hard", I am going to be MORE likely to buy the bat, not less.

(2) Elie, your example is terrible. Elie said:

"It’s ridiculous for bat manufacturers to run around saying there is no difference in danger between wooden bats and aluminum ones. It’s like tobacco manufacturers saying that cigarettes aren’t addictive and don’t cause cancer. "

Actually, it's like saying that cigarrettes aren't as bad as marijuana (note the actual comparison argument, vs. yours, which had no comparison), so cigarrettes should be fine.

Elie's comments here are (almost) as stupid as his idea of liability under the "good samaritan" statutes in Gates-gate.

Warning: Making assumptions without knowing the facts presented to the jury is hazardous

#2 looks like he's sitting on a Louisville Slugger and liking it.

10 is right: the danger is plain, and a warning label would not have stopped the decedent from playing baseball. This will get overturned on appeal.

No, no. Look guys there is a reason why aluminum is so popular... because the ball goes faster and farther with them. I mean i stank out loud in sport and therfore played very little of it, so if i know that, then every kid knows that.

this verdict is ridiculous.

Lack of common sense to 800K

at first blush, at first blush

@12 -- No, Elie's statements here might actually be dumber than his "good samaritan" theory of liability. At least there he took the time to consult an actual legal authority (albeit wrongly) to make his argument.

We are a country filled with a bunch of idiots and p*ssies. Of course a bat is dangerous. Why can't we just learn to take responsibility for our actions and stop trying to blame everyone else for our own problems. We're doomed ...

I propose a warning label for boomerangs. "May come back and hit you in the near future".

"They allow people to swing faster, which is a problem since power has so much to do with bat speed. "

Huh? How does using a 31 oz. aluminum bat allow anyone to swing faster as opposed to using a 31 oz. wooden bat.

I don't expect Elie to know this as I doubt he's ever played a sport but aluminum bats didn't become favored in kids leauges because they provided for more power, its because they last longer (thus less cost to the teams), don't break easily and if they do break they merely crack rather than splintering and sending dangerous wooden shards in unpredictable directions. If you have a strong enough hitter, they can do just as much damage with a wooden bat.

Elie,

How would a label have made a difference? Create a force field around the pitcher? Discourage the batter from using a bat that would let him hit the ball harder? Come on get real.

What about the ball? Have you ever been hit by one? I was a catcher for 12+ years and those bastards hurt because they are hard. Do the baseballs need a label too? Maybe, "Do not throw may cause injury?" Or just substitue nerf balls, but wait those are a choking hazard.

What about wooden bats splintering. In that case you have multiple sharp missles flying at the players? Label there too?

Have you ever played baseball at a competive level?
if you had you would know as every baseball player knows a) there is a chance for injury playing and b) metal bats let the ball jump off the bat. You assume the risk that something bad happens.

You defending this makes makes you look like a joke.

How pathetic are the posters who go on all day, every day about how "dumb" and "fat" Elie is?

You guys need to deal with your anger in a more constructive and lasting way.

Little leaguers, wtf? The guy was 18 yrs old.

Suck my ass, Mystal, you obese, race bating WALRUS!

24=Elie

Judge is as much to blame as the jury. No way this bullshit cause of action should have survived a motion for summary judgment. Not even a demurrer.

30 Here: On another note, I was a pitcher all through middle school and high school. I knew full well the risk that I might get nailed by a ball to which I didn't have time to respond. In fact, I did get hit a few times. While it's tragic that this kid died, every pitcher with at least a small bit of awareness knows this is a possibility. But that's the price you pay for playing sports. Should we also put warning signs on 300lb line backers that say: "Warning, getting hit by me may kill you?" We are starting to really suck as a country.

Elie is not an expert in ANY kind of law. Which is why he is a blogger and not an attorney. A couple of years in a sweatshop doing doc review after taking theoretical classes at Hahvad do not amount to legal expertise.

I disagree with 15 and the rest suggesting the danger is clear -- only because aluminum bats don't have to be (and most designed for little league players are not) harder than wooden bats. The bat makers design bats for kids to respond similarly to wood, they just last longer.

agreed #20, America, stop being pussies. Lost three teeth due to line drive while pitching, too slow, oh well...made a great Halloween costume.

22, as a former collegiate baseball player, let me first say you're an idiot. There obviously is no difference b/w a 31 oz. wood bat and a 31 oz. aluminum bat. However; there likely is a difference in length. The aluminum bat is longer, and therefore offers more of a sweet spot to hit with power. Because of this, aluminum bats will generate more power consistently, creating more danger. College pitchers fear aluminum bats much more than wood. If aluminum was used in the major leagues, people would die each year.

As for your "last longer" argument, you're completely wrong as well. Aluminum bats lose there "pop" significantly throughout a season, and therefore aren't preferential in that sense.

19

I admit to having a difficult time detmining how stupid Elie's comments are. It's sort of like trying to figure out which barnyard animal is the stupidest. They are so far beneath human level that you just can't analyze them.

So, I guess you may be right that Elie's comparison in this post is even stupider than his "Good Samaritan" analysis.

12

When I was 11, my parents got me a wood baseball bat for my birthday, instead of an aluminum one, because it was cheaper. Not wanting to insult my parents, I used that wooden baseball bat every time I batted for the next 2 seasons even though the league provided aluminum bats. Guess what, I became the worst hitter on the team and batted 13th after the spastic Asian kid.

Like others, I'm not sure how a warning on a bat held by a batter 60 feet six inches away would help warn a pitcher who is about to be nailed by a come-backer.

The real trial lawyers over at Skadden would have never lost this case.

"at first blush" and "on first blush" = fail

WARNING, HANGING SLIDERS AND CURVEBALLS MAY RESULT IN DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY.

(too soon? OK, I'm going to hell)

Elie,

This is a retarded statement:

"They allow people to swing faster, which is a problem since power has so much to do with bat speed."

The difference doesn't come from the speed or bat (there is no difference in speed between 32 oz wooden bats and metal ones) but from the bigger sweet spot and compression of the metal. The compression of the metal allows the ball to "jump" off the bat, thereby increasing the speed of the batted ball. Jesus did you ever a) take physics b) think before you write something.

Elie, any time you write a column that is going to require a response/clarification from Lat just to get published, don't upload it. Just forget you wrote it and move on to the next layoff news.

it's hard to say what the bat in this case was, but bats today are far different fromt he cheapo aluminum bats we had as kids. they have doublewalls and are designed to increase ball speeds dramatically. softball leagues now have two different bat standards for this reason. and, don't forget, little league fields are smaller. pitchers are closer to home plate than they would be in the big leagues.

i think this case is interesting. this issue should have been regulated a long time ago to protect children. this verdict may force manufacturers to self regulate.

This was perhaps the shallowest analysis of this case I've read yet.

"As for your "last longer" argument, you're completely wrong as well. Aluminum bats lose there "pop" significantly throughout a season, and therefore aren't preferential in that sense. "

Not for little leaguers. The aluminum bats they use aren't the $350 bats college players use, the little league teams I grew up with passed down aluminum bats for years. They are much cheaper than wood bats which can and do break, even in younger leagues if a ball makes contact too far in.

"If aluminum was used in the major leagues, people would die each year. "

So where are all the deaths on the college level, and what POS college did you play baseball. People would die each year! Heavens Be? How many?

I hit a bases loaded triple this weekend with Kash. Now I'm being followed around by a bunch of stray cats.

Here’s a baseball tort story for you (completely true)

A local little league coach in a “coach pitch” league had a couple kids (as in 8 year olds) who couldn’t make any contact. He had the brilliant idea of teaching them timing by throwing something bigger than a baseball – not a bad idea in theory. So he tossed one of the kids a basketball – the weak little kid hits it with an aluminum bat which is about as light as the ball. The force of the pressurized ball sends the bat flying back into the kid’s face knocking out all his front teeth.

42 (Elie, is that you???)

Your point about little league would be important if this blog post had anything to do with little league.

44

The little league bats do "lose their pop" so to speak, but the net effect at that level is not material.

You really can tell the difference between a two year old bat and a new one.

As for the old cheapo ones, the ones I grew up, and assume you did too, were essentially metal clubs that never had any pop to begin with. The ones I used starting about Pony league were composites and actually did have that effect. My parents loved dropping 200 bucks every year on a new bat let me tell you.

44, the speed in college pitching is not the major leagues and while there are not yet significant death tolls, there is major concern. Your little league teams must have sucked as well. We got new bats each year.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/04/28/give_metal_bats_the_heave_ho/

kudos to the jury for doing the brave thing here. Louisville was totally in the wrong. Maybe this will send a message to their New York headquarters that their profiting from injuring innocent cricket players

This would never happen in Texas

46

That's awesome. If that coach hadn't gotten sued I would be LMAO.

In response to Skadden partner J. Russell Jackson:

Perhaps you miss the fact that there IS a greater danger between aluminum bats and wooden bats (this is fairly well-known) and that perhaps a warning, while it may not have changed the decisions of either the hitter and batter here, may have implications for the larger organizations in which they participate. Perhaps, with warnings, little leagues might use wooden bats, or may take steps to further protect the players (helmets for pitchers).

This is one of the reasons for awarding these verdicts in tort law, is it not?

49

I call BS on the speed thing. Most of the first round draft choices out of college are a) throwing 90+ b) in the majors within two seasons c) the rest who are not first rounders are throwing 80-95 but don't have the control.

Please do not speak about that which you do not know.

53=Kid who was always picked last in gym and never played competitive sports

Elie- proof that harvard is a first tier toilet

I'm with Elie. As long as these idiots raise the defense that aluminum bats are the same as wooden ones, they should get lit up in court. Not because liability is compelled by sounds principles of law, but just because that defense is idiotic.

Also, aluminum bats are for pussies. Anything that imposes costs on the bats' manufacturers, I'm for.

54, not 49 here, with very few exceptions most people drafted in HS and College are not even close to complete development like a major league pitcher. Pitcher's probably hit their peak athletecism around 27-32.

I guess they should put warning labels on metal woods as well (talking golf here for those not following). Persimmon (wood) clubs didn't hit the ball as far nor as fast. I guess the next time someone dies after being knocked in the head by a golf ball that was hit too far, we need put warning labels on the new clubs... "Warning, using this driver may lead to you hitting the ball farther, which means you may drive into the next group and you may kill someone, drive with caution."

Seriously, what a bogus lawsuit and win. I understand that the metal launches the ball faster (higher COR than wood), but its still just a part of the game. What are we going to do next? Test kids to make sure they have reaction times that are fast enough to be a pitcher? Why not just make everyone on the field wear a helmet?

This was tragic, yes, but it was still an accident and no warning label would have prevented it.

54

How are first round draft choices indicitive of the norm in college baseball? Several hundred teams, and you make assumptions based on a couple dozen players?

Good thing it only took 40 comments for someone to correctly explain why metal bats are more dangerous than wooden ones (and hence why Elie is an idiot). Thank you, 40.

The idea of warning labels, in many instances, is a total joke. A warning on the bat would not have changed the conduct of either hitter or pitcher. 15 is right -- this case will get overturned on appeal.

58/60

Maybe I played at a super competitve level in HS but most of the #1 starting pitchers were throwing 80-90 and the others were throwing 75-85.

The main point I was making was that pitching is not all that much "slower" in college than the majors.

Control is the key difference that's get you a 10MM dollar signing bonus (and if you have a curve throw in another 10MM).

MysTTTal.

Thank you, Lat, for interjecting some rationality. Elie: Think before you write.

61

Someone needs to explain things on here becasue none of the writers here appear to know anything about sports.

-40

Agree this lawsuit should never have gone to the jury, because a warning would not have made a difference in anyone's behavior so there is no causation as a matter of law. 53 is wrong -- the dangers of aluminum bats are well known to all baseball organizations, that debate has been going on for many years and they choose to allow them.

55 - I'm not saying I agree with the verdict. Merely pointing out that the comment fails to take into account tort law in general.

I'm all for the assumption of risk... I mean seriously, if you're throwing directly in front of you knowing that the batter is going to try and hit the ball, you must have some idea that the ball may come directly back at you. Going further, you must have known exactly how hard that ball was, because you did have to hold it to throw it and any reasonably intelligent human should know that serious damage could occur if hit in the head with said hard object. For that matter, getting hit in the chest can send the heard into v-fib and getting hit you know where would probably hurt too and have adverse implications for future fertility. Anyway, all this should be known in my opinion. This might render the difference between the bats moot.

Maybe, if the danger was advertised, the pitcher would have decided to wear some protective gear - who knows.

As for playing sports competitively - football, hockey, baseball and soccer for decades.

Got a legal comment, post it, otherwise you should go bury your head in the sand somewhere.

Those posters criticizing the result in this case are hopelessly uninformed. First, it is obvious they know little about the physics involved in wielding an aluminum bat. Second, they appear unaware of the efforts taken by Easton Sporting Goods and other other aluminum bat manufacturers in regard to bat standards, including: (i) manipulating lab test standards as part of an effort to minimize recorded exit velocities; and (ii) suing the NCAA for $267 million because it proposed to institute reduced standards for exit velocity, arguing that the proposed standards would harm its business interests.

Essentially, the bat-makers realize that people like the extra "oomph" provided by an aluminum bat and have made bats lighter with bigger sweet spots in order to increase the trampoline effect batters experience. While this isn't a problem in a weekend softball game, it is a problem in a competitive baseball game, where the bats are so well-constructed and the exit velocities so magnified as to present a danger to fielders, particularly pitchers. Moreover, Easton, et al. lowball the exit velocities, testing bats at 60 mph and extrapolating, despite knowing that the exit velocity caused by a ball moving at 90 mph exceeds the predicted extrapolation.

BTW the bat used by the kid who was killed was the Air Attack 2 model. The name speaks volumes.

See

http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2000/0329/453294.html

and

http://ponyball.net/aluminum-bat-dangerous.html

America should abolish the jury system. Jurors are idiots.

Do Eskimos still use bats to hunt Walruses?

I blame the ball, not the bat. It should have slowed down when it sensed it was going to hit a living being.

66, the phsyics speak for themselves. I made no mention about being known to baseball orgs, but as 68 points out, you are incorrect.

In any event, if you've used both types of bats, you should be able to feel the difference.

And a warning may have:

1. caused organizations not to use them, because if such warning were out there and leagues required the use of such bats - well.....

2. caused pitchers to wear protective gear.

In the words of Cardozo (in virtually every tort opinion he wrote) 'life's a motherfucker: get a helmet."

Elie,

You're an idiot.

68, shame on all of us, we thought Hillerich & Bradsby was the defendant and bat manufacturer in this lawsuit. But you have apparently unearthed proof that Easton was the one hit with this verdict. Well done.

68

1) Are you arguing that if legal players should not use every advantage they can?

2) The NCAA already imposes a weight to length ratio restriction on the bat (if I remember correctly).

3) The NCAA would win that suit. Otherwise no legaue could regulate any of the equipment used in it becasue it might harm their business interests.

75: H&B Manufactures an Air Attack 2

And while I wasn't in the courtroom, I suspect the plaintiff's argument was:

(1) The decedent was killed by after being struck by a baseball during a game in which aluminum bats were used;

(2) The aluminum bat which killed decedent was constructed in a manner so as to render it inherently dangerous, a fact known to manufacturer but unknown to decedent, and exceeded the level of risk decedent would have assumed had he known otherwise.

(3) Decedent, as a player, was familiar with aluminum bats, and only participated in a game during which aluminum bats were used because he had never before seen a bat with a warning label.

Frankly, the cost of affixing a warning label to a bat is minimal, but the industry won't want to do it unless there's some financial repercussion because they don't want all the Little Leaguers' moms and dads freaking out.

72, what organizations were you referring to in your post at 68 that a warning could have caused to behave differently, if not the baseball organizations? What other organizations would be relevant to preventing the plaintiff's injury?

This lawsuit is just another sad reminder that in America, anytime something goes wrong someone else with money is to blame. It's a tragic accident. Pure speculation to argue that a warning would have made the slightest bit of difference.

@68:
"Pitcher's probably hit their peak athletecism around 27-32."

FALSE. Pitchers never reach a state of "athletecism."

77, so what? 68 is trying to smear all the bat manufacturers based on allegations regarding Easton and its battle with the NCAA. Irrelevant.

I hope this results in a tax on baseball bats.
- BHO

You'll have 400ms to react to a batted ball. Do you want to play?
Yes, I do.
My mistake, you'll only have 378ms. That 28ms less time. Now do you want to play.
No, absolutely not.

In spite of his/her Msytal-esqe grammar fail, does 83 get points for making sense?

400ms = how long she gets when we're having sex

79: You claim that my statement that aluminum bats are more dangerous and that this is well-known to baseball organizations.

The comment, however, simply stated that aluminum bats are more dangerous and that fact is fairly well-known. Simply, anyone with an understanding of physics would know that aluminum bats are more dangerous...

The comment then went on to state that a warning may have influenced organizations, namely baseball organizations, yes.

75 - Sweet Christmas, get a life. OF COURSE Hillerich & Bradsby, i.e., Louisville Slugger, was the defendant. You apparently missed my several referenecs to "others" and "et al." and "batmakers" and "industry."

76, addressing each of your questions:

1) Are you arguing that if legal players should not use every advantage they can?

Yes, I am arguing that "players should not use every advantage they can," because some "advantages" are too dangerous to use. You have to cap performance otherwise things get out of hand. For example, I'm sure Bike could manufacture a lightweight steel football helmet capable of delivering greater impact. Should that be legal? Of course not.

2) The NCAA already imposes a weight to length ratio restriction on the bat (if I remember correctly).

These restrictions have nothing to do with the manner in which aluminum bats are constructed so as to make them excessively powerful. Please access the link I posted.

3) The NCAA would win that suit. Otherwise no legaue could regulate any of the equipment used in it becasue it might harm their business interests.

Sigh. Three items:

(i) You don't know that "[t]he NCAA would win that suit."

(ii) Even if the NCAA was successful, it would likely incur significant attorneys' fees and expenses.

(iii) The reason I mentioned the lawsuit Easton filed, which you suggest is baseless, was to rebut the presumption that the industry is harmless and that the decedent's family and the jury acted improperly.

The dangers associated with aluminum bats have been well-known to the industry, including LS, for some time, yet the industry continues to manufacture bats which, when used as directed, exceed acceptable risk parameters. And when the NCAA proposed modified standards in order to decrease the risk, Easton, the industry leader, filed suit in order to prevent any changes.

So the "debate" you are referring to is not the debate referenced in the original comment, huh? That aluminum bats are more dangerous? You are agreeing that aluminum bats are more dangerous?

87, sorry to see that you're too dense to discern and/or appreciate sarcasm. 75

I hope this results in a tax on baseball bats.
- BHO

I hope this results in a tax on baseball bats.
- BHO

So let's assume that 50,000 Americans (undoubtedly underestimated) play organized baseball at some level. And let's assume they play 15 games per year. That makes 375,000 games per year.

And let's assume the games average 7 innings (undoubtedly underestimated) -- i.e. 42 outs . And let's assume that there are seven base runners per game for each side (undoubtedly underestimated). And let's assume that each at bat takes 5 pitches (undoubtedly underestimated).

That makes 49 plate appearances per team, times 2 for each game, times 5 pitches, times 375,000 games.

I.e. 183,750,000 pitches per game per year. 39 baseball-related fatalities from 1989 to 2006 means 2 per year (18 years). Assume they are all from batted balls. (Some could be thrown balls, some could be head-first slides.) That means 2 fatalities in 183,750,000 pitches -- i.e. roughly 1 in 100 million.

Hard to conceive

bats don't kill people, batters do

93, sounds good to me!

I wish I had a bat right now, there has been a walrus following me now for three blocks. I am nervous.

It's unfortunate when facts get in the way.

From http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2000/association-wide/former+bat+designer+requests+government+intervention+-+5-8-00

Jack MacKay Jr., a former baseball bat designer for Louisville Slugger, has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), asking that it issue a rule requiring the wood-like performance of all nonwood baseball bats and recall all nonwood baseball bats that exceed the performance of wood baseball bats.

In a 75-page petition sent to the independent federal regulatory agency, MacKay details his perspective of the debate over metal and nonwood bats and also asks the CPSC to levy penalties against bat manufacturers that he asserts have violated federal law by failing to report information to the CPSC about serious injuries sustained by people injured by their products.

From 1987 to 1997, MacKay designed bats -- including aluminum bats -- for Hillerich & Bradsby, the manufacturers of Louisville Slugger bats.

"Little did I know when I designed those bats, we would end up with something that was just lethal," MacKay told the Associated Press of his years as a bat designer. "Bats now act like tennis rackets."

In the petition, MacKay alleges improprieties on the part of many different aluminum bat manufacturers. He also alleges that the aluminum bats currently in use include those that pose a significant threat to players' safety.

"The aluminum bat manufacturers have fraudulently represented to the public, and various rule-making and governing bodies, that the aluminum bats they produce perform like wood bats," MacKay wrote. "They purposely have withheld critical testing information regarding bat performance from the NCAA because they do not want to reveal the truth about the performance of aluminum bats."

MacKay does not oppose the use of aluminum bats in baseball, but he believes they should perform like wood.

"I think there's a great place for aluminum," MacKay said during the "All Things Considered" program on National Public Radio.

"I think it can be very cost-effective. I think that aluminum has to be tailored so that it performs like wood."

In the petition, MacKay asserted that wood is representative of the widely acceptable level of risk in the game of baseball.

"Although there is a certain level of risk involved in playing the sport of baseball, the level of risk associated with wood bats has generally been accepted by all associated with the game as the 'reasonable level of risk.' Therefore, any greater level of risk than that presented by traditional wood bats is unreasonable. After extensive testing and research, there is simply no question that the aluminum bats today substantially outperform traditional wood bats, and that the risk of serious injury to pitchers and infielders has become more prevalent," MacKay wrote.

86, I certainly agree with you that aluminum bats are more dangerous than wooden bats because of the increased exit velocity and reduced reaction time as explained by 68. I also believe that this is well known, especially to baseball organizations. I don't think a warning would have caused them to do anything different, since they have known of this danger for a long time and neither outlawed the bats nor required pitchers to wear helmets for protection. 79

84: You also forgot to note 83's mathematical fail.

92- your baseline assumption of 50,000 is incorrect.

We're not talking about everyone playing baseball, because most people can't pitch hard enough, or generate enough bat speed, to make the risk of using an aluminum bat unreasonable. What we are talking about is a small universe of people (exceptional high school players and college players) who are too good to use this kind of equipment.

A study showed that pitchers need .375 seconds to react to a batted ball hit straight at them. While only 5 percent of balls hit by wood bats got to the pitchers' mound in that time, 60 percent of balls hit by aluminum arrived in less than .375 seconds. In other words, there's an additional 55% risk that the pitcher simply can't react in time.

And the point everyone seems to be missing is that it would be easy for the manufacturers to fix the problem -- all they have to do is reduce the "efficiency" of their product so as to lessen the risk. Manufacturers do this all the time. And to the extent they are unwilling to do so, make them put a warning label on the equipment.

I suppose, but once it is out there, in the open, they might decide that they too could become liable if they don't change their policies. At least now they can argue that hey look, the manufacturers point to this data so the bats seem no more dangerous to us... If the manufacturers place a label, the organizations couldn't make that argument any longer.

Ok, all this commenting while on conf. calls is not working ...

Tort reform, NOW.

Pitcher calls timeout to read warning labels for batter's bat. Discussion ensues regarding batter's planned bat speed.

Batter calls timeout to read baseball's warning labels. Discussion ensues regarding the location and rate in which pitcher intends to pitch the ball.

Total risk is calculated using the umpires TI-85 graphing calculator.

As game continues, first baseman calls timeout to correct risk equation to consider protection provided to batter by his helmet.

Generally speaking, I find the comments on this site filled with the drivel of undereducated destitutes who received schooling from non-peer, non-preeminent law schools. However, Commenter #87 gives me hope.

Wretches: please take note of #87's proper use of grammar and sound reasoning. You would be well served by utilizing both in your own legal careers.

What next - sue a manufactuer of hockey skates after little Billy has his throat cut by a skate when he fall on another player? sue the manufacturer of the lacrosse ball that strikes your son, a high school senior who plays goal, in the chest, causing cardiac arrest and killing him? Both of these tragedies happened in the past two years.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and voluntary assumption of risk? All sports are inherently risky. If you don't want the risk, live in a bubble.

Maybe the batter should be sued for being too strong. Maybe he was on steroids--in which case everyone should be sued. Maybe the sport of baseball should be sued (yeah that's right, the whole sport) because the field dimensions are out of date--now that workouts have become more efficient, and performance diets are easier to maintain, the field should just be bigger.

This is why foreigners think Americans are idiots. One rarely sees a "slippery when wet" sign in Australia. In New Zealand there are no warning labels on hot beverages advising that they are indeed hot. I've been asked several times by foreign acquaintances if Americans are particularly oblivious to danger, such that we must be warned that every knife is sharp and that bulky plastic toys probably ought not to be swallowed by toddlers. It is difficult for them to understand our complete lack-of-individual-responsibility culture.

So what if aluminum bats are inherently more dangerous. Does anyone really believe than an 18-year-old baseball player was unaware of that fact? It was part of the risk he assumed.

(1) slap a helmet on the pitcher, (2) erect barriers in front of the pitchers' mounds like they use during the home run derby, (3) play baseball with tennis balls, (4) don't let your kid pitch, or (5) shut the fuck up and assume the risk.

What the hell does a warning accomplish? My 3-year-old could tell you that when people are hitting balls in your direction, one could hit you in the head.

I'm not even for tort reform but this is just a dumb case. The court should have thrown the suit out as patently frivolous. If you need a warning that getting hit in the head with a baseball is a risk of playing baseball then you are too stupid to live. Seriously. Shit happens. To everyone. Every day. It's sad that their kid died but it is not possible to litigate away tragedy. Athletes assume basic risks when playing their sports, and being hit by a baseball is an assumed risk. The bat is irrelevant. And three years ago, if you asked these people if it seemed possible that a pitcher could be hit in the head with a baseball during a game and be seriously injured or die as a result, they almost certainly would have said yes, of course. They must be so happy to have some money to throw at their grief. Complete idiots. Blech.

I'm not even for tort reform but this is just a dumb case. The court should have thrown the suit out as patently frivolous. If you need a warning that getting hit in the head with a baseball is a risk of playing baseball then you are too stupid to live. Seriously. Shit happens. To everyone. Every day. It's sad that their kid died but it is not possible to litigate away tragedy. Athletes assume basic risks when playing their sports, and being hit by a baseball is an assumed risk. The bat is irrelevant. And three years ago, if you asked these people if it seemed possible that a pitcher could be hit in the head with a baseball during a game and be seriously injured or die as a result, they almost certainly would have said yes, of course. They must be so happy to have some money to throw at their grief. Complete idiots. Blech.

I'm not even for tort reform but this is just a dumb case. The court should have thrown the suit out as patently frivolous. If you need a warning that getting hit in the head with a baseball is a risk of playing baseball then you are too stupid to live. Seriously. Shit happens. To everyone. Every day. It's sad that their kid died but it is not possible to litigate away tragedy. Athletes assume basic risks when playing their sports, and being hit by a baseball is an assumed risk. The bat is irrelevant. And three years ago, if you asked these people if it seemed possible that a pitcher could be hit in the head with a baseball during a game and be seriously injured or die as a result, they almost certainly would have said yes, of course. They must be so happy to have some money to throw at their grief. Complete idiots. Blech.

I'm not even for tort reform but this is just a dumb case. The court should have thrown the suit out as patently frivolous. If you need a warning that getting hit in the head with a baseball is a risk of playing baseball then you are too stupid to live. Seriously. Shit happens. To everyone. Every day. It's sad that their kid died but it is not possible to litigate away tragedy. Athletes assume basic risks when playing their sports, and being hit by a baseball is an assumed risk. The bat is irrelevant. And three years ago, if you asked these people if it seemed possible that a pitcher could be hit in the head with a baseball during a game and be seriously injured or die as a result, they almost certainly would have said yes, of course. They must be so happy to have some money to throw at their grief. Complete idiots. Blech.

I'm not even for tort reform but this is just a dumb case. The court should have thrown the suit out as patently frivolous. If you need a warning that getting hit in the head with a baseball is a risk of playing baseball then you are too stupid to live. Seriously. Shit happens. To everyone. Every day. It's sad that their kid died but it is not possible to litigate away tragedy. Athletes assume basic risks when playing their sports, and being hit by a baseball is an assumed risk. The bat is irrelevant. And three years ago, if you asked these people if it seemed possible that a pitcher could be hit in the head with a baseball during a game and be seriously injured or die as a result, they almost certainly would have said yes, of course. They must be so happy to have some money to throw at their grief. Complete idiots. Blech.

Did the parents have anything to do with the son learning to play baseball? Maybe the estate should sue them for child endangerment or neglect or some other crazy family law crap.

Let's hope the town's baseball league shuts down and other parents lynch the plaintiffs in this case.

Wow. A lot of comments.

First, I also played collegiate baseball, and there is no doubt I'd rather hit with an aluminum bat vs. a woody. Is there a difference between a 31 oz. woody and a 31 oz. aluminum bat? Yes - both in length, which was already mentioned, but also in weight distribution. Combine the longer bat, with better weight distribution and all advances with double aluminum walls, etc., and you have bat that could make Marge Simpson a power-hitter.

With all of that said, the warning label should be used by the leagues, not by the individuals. The leagues have to ban certain types of bats, etc., or go to all wood bats.

Aluminum has a substantially higher coefficient of restitution than wood, so other things being equal, i.e, bat length, weight and weight distribution, swing speed, and point and direction of contact, the ball will bounce off the aluminum bat faster than off the wood bat - perhaps as much as 10% faster.

But the warning label? To the batter it sounds like a sales pitch. To the pitcher? What is he supposed to do - not pitch to somebody with an aluminum bat? This is an issue for the league or legislature

Um, guys, this was exactly the plot for one strand of John Grisham's "The Appeal".

*Ahem. Showing the nature of my legal reading there...*

Alex Deane
www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

The warning label should be on the ball.