Jury Idiocy Comes to Montana

[jtat32]

There we go! Now we're talking. Let's sue everyone, heck sue God too!

If people are dying at a high rate driving to church on Sundays, as you implied earlier, you might have something there. Could be an easy target, too, since good lawyers are likely hard to find in His domain.

[Skarp]

The problem is that the high end bat manufacturers will raise holy hell over anything like a wooden bat standard. There's no way they'll let the gravy train pull away from the station without an enormous fight.

Why is it always the big, bad, evil corporations that are to blame? Do they make people buy their bats?

Companies produce products in response to market demands. Period. Right now, as always, there is high market demand for the hottest bats allowed under applicable standards. You can lament the fact that people want their kids playing with these bats all you want, but the claim that the bat manufacturers won't "let" the standards change is ridiculous. Bat companies just make the bats. Sanctioning bodies (and indirectly but just as importantly, we) decide when and where those products may be used.

[absdad]

Why is it always the big, bad, evil corporations that are to blame?

The amount of blame, is directly proportional to the depth of the pockets.

It's pretty sad that so many people fail to take any personal responsibility.

[SkinnyFats]

but the claim that the bat manufacturers won't "let" the standards change is ridiculous. Bat companies just make the bats. Sanctioning bodies (and indirectly but just as importantly, we) decide when and where those products may be used.

Sure. Like I said, I would have sued the sanctioning body as well as the bat manufacturer. It doesn't surprise me at all that bat manufacturers make the bats they do - they're expensive, and they meet the spec (at least for a while, when they are brand new, they meet the spec. Then they get hotter, and the manufacturers are well aware of that. That's where their liability would come into play.). The sanctioning body is aware of the danger and does nothing about it.

I would fully expect that at the trial, I would find piles of studies showing that a lower exit speed is considerably safer. Then I could find studies that show that bats get hotter with age. Then I could find internal sanctioning body documents where they have studied the matter, and calculated the lower participation rate in softball that would come from a wooden bat standard, and how much money that lower participation would cost them. A jury could sort it all out, and I would expect that just as in the McDonald's case you cited, that what we have here are companies that are well aware of the risks they are causing. But they are ignoring the risks for purely financial reasons. Hopefully the damages would be significant enough to get them to change their behaviour.

[SkinnyFats]

Thinning the herd might be a good thing

Now that one isn't worth responding to.

[SkinnyFats]

Why is it always the big, bad, evil corporations that are to blame?

The amount of blame, is directly proportional to the depth of the pockets.

It's pretty sad that so many people fail to take any personal responsibility.

No, the amount of blame is directly proportional to the liability involved. And again, just as in the McDonald's case, a jury will decide responsibility. Some will lie with the user, and some with the big, bad, evil corporation. And were it not for lawsuits like these, the corporation could truly become bad and evil, with little to stop them.

[absdad]

No, the amount of blame is directly proportional to the liability involved. And again, just as in the McDonald's case, a jury will decide responsibility. Some will lie with the user, and some with the big, bad, evil corporation. And were it not for lawsuits like these, the corporation could truly become bad and evil, with little to stop them.

You're painting this pretty picture (with a broad brush mind you) and pointing blame to bat manufacturers. You've chosen to ignore that the sanctioning bodies have set a mandate specification for the bats, and that the manufacturers have followed that. So if and when that standard is lowered, and the next kid dies, then what? Sue the big bad evil bat company? Keep suing them until they run out of money? Everybody gets a chance to poke the bat company?

[SkinnyFats]

You're painting this pretty picture (with a broad brush mind you) and pointing blame to bat manufacturers. You've chosen to ignore that the sanctioning bodies have set a mandate specification for the bats, and that the manufacturers have followed that.

Have you read anything I written? I'm not ignoring the sanctioning bodies AT ALL. In my opinion they are at least as responsible as the bat manufacturers. I've repeatedly said I believe the mandated spec for the bats is TOO HIGH. And that the bat manufacturer's liability comes into play not by meeting the spec, but by selling a product that after it has been used a while EXCEEDS the spec. Do you disagree with either of those points?

[absdad]

Have you read anything I written?

I am, but you're dancing around like Cacious Clay, so it's a bit hard.

I'm not ignoring the sanctioning bodies AT ALL. In my opinion they are at least as responsible as the bat manufacturers. I've repeatedly said I believe the mandated spec for the bats is TOO HIGH. And that the bat manufacturer's liability comes into play not by meeting the spec, but by selling a product that after it has been used a while EXCEEDS the spec. Do you disagree with either of those points?

Your opinion is that the spec is too high. And you've got volumes of data to back that up, right? I mean, we ALL know more than the corporations, right?

prod·ucts liability
: liability imposed on a manufacturer or seller for a defective and unreasonably dangerous product; specifically : strict liability for a defective product that does not require the plaintiff to have privity of contract with the seller or manufacturer called also product liability
NOTE: A plaintiff usually must show that a defective product was the proximate cause of injuries, was defective at the time of purchase, and was used for its intended purpose in order to establish a products liability claim.

Do you honestly think that all these bats are defective, and that all the bat manufacturers know it, and they're still selling them? Regardless of the limits imposed on them?

For the record, I do agree that they should be lowered to make things safer. It will reduce, but no eliminate these accidents. That was my point that seems to fly over a few. What I have a huge problem with is people with a complete disregard for personal responsibility. And this mentality that you can just sue everyone under the sun. It's a cancer to our country.

[SkinnyFats]

I am, but you're dancing around like Cacious Clay, so it's a bit hard.

Huh? More like bulling straight ahead like Mike Tyson. Dancing? Where?

Your opinion is that the spec is too high. And you've got volumes of data to back that up, right? I mean, we ALL know more than the corporations, right?

Sure - I've got lots and lots and lots and lots of data to back that up. You want me to start posting it? Better get your reading glasses out.

Do you honestly think that all these bats are defective, and that all the bat manufacturers know it, and they're still selling them? Regardless of the limits imposed on them?

Absolutely.