Im sorry the Kid is brain damaged But how is this anyones fault?

[olevetonahill]

Hell if anything his parents AND himself are at least 50% to blame if not a 100% for letting him play

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/14-5m-boys-brain-injury-161747443--spt.html

[okie52]

Good lord...didn't even hit him in the head.

Now they've deadened the aluminum bats to where they sound like cardboard when they hit the ball.

[Mississippi Sooner]

It's a tragedy, but yeah, it's the risk you take when you play a competitive sport. Blaming the league or the bat maker or whatever is ridiculous.

Now, with that said, I've been on record for years as believing that metal bats have no place in any level of baseball. And it honestly blows my mind that grown men use them at the college level. That's where the real danger lies. I know high school and college players have already suffered permanent injuries because of balls coming off metal bats, and it's just gonna keep on happening.

I mean, how do you teach kids to take off at the crack of the bat when the bat makes a damn "ping?"

[badger]

An Oklahoma gas can company is going out of business because people kept suing due to setting things on fire. That's litigation for ya. The rest of the world makes fun of us for it.

[okie52]

It's a tragedy, but yeah, it's the risk you take when you play a competitive sport. Blaming the league or the bat maker or whatever is ridiculous.

Now, with that said, I've been on record for years as believing that metal bats have no place in any level of baseball. And it honestly blows my mind that grown men use them at the college level. That's where the real danger lies. I know high school and college players have already suffered permanent injuries because of balls coming off metal bats, and it's just gonna keep on happening.

I mean, how do you teach kids to take off at the crack of the bat when the bat makes a damn "ping?"

Been around for quite a while but I'd be happy to see it go back to wood.

[Mississippi Sooner]

Been around for quite a while but I'd be happy to see it go back to wood.


Yeah, it's one of those things that makes you sound like an old fogie when you say it, but man. Wooden bats were just fine for little leagues all the way up through the 70s, anyway. The only reason I can think of as to why they prefer the metal ones is that they last longer, I guess.

[Mississippi Sooner]

But grown men, unless they are playing slow pitch softball, should be embarrassed to use metal bats. IMO

[okie52]

Yeah, it's one of those things that makes you sound like an old fogie when you say it, but man. Wooden bats were just fine for little leagues all the way up through the 70s, anyway. The only reason I can think of as to why they prefer the metal ones is that they last longer, I guess.

That but I also think it helps lesser players get around on the ball.

Label up actually meant something with wood bats.

[okie52]

But grown men, unless they are playing slow pitch softball, should be embarrassed to use metal bats. IMO

Plus a lot of college kids have a hard time adjusting to wood bats after using the metal ones.

Summer leagues would often have wooden bat leagues that would help with the adjustment.

[olevetonahill]

Been around for quite a while but I'd be happy to see it go back to wood.

Yea Im all for Wood. :highly_amused:

[Midtowner]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.

[olevetonahill]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.

Everybody agreed the Bat was safe to use, sorry dude but that argument dont wash in this case
Theres risk in every thing we do .
Theres too many folk that see dollar signs when something goes wrong and some greedy bastard lawyer jumps right in for his cut
Not sayin ALL lawyers are that way But a good dayum chunk of em are

[KABOOKIE]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.

Damn straight!

Coffee can't be hotter than hot and bats can't hit balls faster than fast. :rolleyes:

[Midtowner]

Everybody agreed the Bat was safe to use, sorry dude but that argument dont wash in this case

Really? The bat manufacturer disagrees with you. They willingly paid 14.5MM to make sure this never saw a jury. I'll trust someone who paid big bucks to make that call over a vet on a hill.


Theres risk in every thing we do .

And when someone creates a product which comes with an unreasonable risk of injury, they're going to get to pay the piper.


Theres too many folk that see dollar signs when something goes wrong and some greedy bastard lawyer jumps right in for his cut
Not sayin ALL lawyers are that way But a good dayum chunk of em are

Dollars are the only way we can compensate someone when they have been wronged. This bat manufacturing company created a bat which was designed to be used in a game where it would launch hard projectiles towards players at unsafe speeds as compared to wooden bats. This thing was specifically designed to be dangerous. Now, the entire game has recognized this and the risks of playing are now diminished.

Someone please bring up the McDonald's hot coffee case so I can really take you to school. Go 'head... do it.

[pphilfran]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.

Yes...but the same thing could happen to a kid when using a wooden bat...you are pulled in for a bunt and the kid swings away...party over...

I would also wager that the bat the brain damaged kid at the plate was just as deadly...if the company produced a bat that it knew was dangerous and continued to make the product I could see the settlement...

I guess we need to start using wiffle balls and bats...

I am not a proponent of aluminum bats...

[Midtowner]

Damn straight!

Coffee can't be hotter than hot and bats can't hit balls faster than fast. :rolleyes:

Took the bait while I was writing my last reply.... You are the victim of a tort reform misinformation campaign. Of course you would know better than a jury and judge who heard and saw all of the evidence and rendered a verdict. You read something on the internet, so we should all bow to your superior wisdom and information. Here are some facts you probably don't know about the so-called hot coffee case:


Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald’s revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonald’s had engaged in “willful, wanton, and reckless” behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;

McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”

You still want to say that case was unreasonable?

bBKRjxeQnT4

[Midtowner]

Yes...but the same thing could happen to a kid when using a wooden bat...you are pulled in for a bunt and the kid swings away...party over...

I would also wager that the bat the brain damaged kid at the plate was just as deadly...if the company produced a bat that it knew was dangerous and continued to make the product I could see the settlement...

I guess we need to start using wiffle balls and bats...

I am not a proponent of aluminum bats...

Well, you're a tire guy... what do you think of Cooper tires?

[pphilfran]

Well, you're a tire guy... what do you think of Cooper tires?

They stink...I looked a many cut tires from Cooper and they were to most inconsistent of any brand...their belt packages were nasty...

[olevetonahill]

Really? The bat manufacturer disagrees with you. They willingly paid 14.5MM to make sure this never saw a jury. I'll trust someone who paid big bucks to make that call over a vet on a hill.

From the article
Domalewski was playing in a Police Athletic League game, but Little League was sued because the group certifies that specific metal bats are approved for - and safe for - use in games involving children.


And when someone creates a product which comes with an unreasonable risk of injury, they're going to get to pay the piper.



Dollars are the only way we can compensate someone when they have been wronged. This bat manufacturing company created a bat which was designed to be used in a game where it would launch hard projectiles towards players at unsafe speeds as compared to wooden bats. This thing was specifically designed to be dangerous. Now, the entire game has recognized this and the risks of playing are now diminished.

Someone please bring up the McDonald's hot coffee case so I can really take you to school. Go 'head... do it.

Of which this bat was one
Hell they dint wanta go in front of a ****in jury , prolly be a bunch of tit suckin crybaby libs that would say they need to give the kid a GSV while they at it

[Midtowner]

They stink...I looked a many cut tires from Cooper and they were to most inconsistent of any brand...their belt packages were nasty...

And when someone is driving down the road and their Cooper tires blow out due to poor construction, don't you think someone should be liable?

[Midtowner]

Of which this bat was one
Hell they dint wanta go in front of a ****in jury , prolly be a bunch of tit suckin crybaby libs that would say they need to give the kid a GSV while they at it

Approved and safe for use by whom?

If the bat company promoted the bats as safe and these folks relied on that, they're not going to let the bat company off the hook.

Innocent people don't pay $14.5MM and allow the settlement to be public.

[pphilfran]

Michelin were unbelievably consistent...they had a little different build than any other competitor but a tire from a US plant was a dead ringer to a tire built in Europe...

All of the major brands are good...Goodyear, Kelley (owned by Goodyear and built in Goodyear plants, Bridgestone, Yokohomam and Firestone (the Ford problem was due to crappy specs from Ford...Goodyear refused to bid on the contract since the specs were questionable and were no robust enough)....

[pphilfran]

And when someone is driving down the road and their Cooper tires blow out due to poor construction, don't you think someone should be liable?


Yes, but they blow due to a defect...an open splice...foreign material in the compound...could even be a tire that was perfectly built but at some time was ran at too low a pressure and the heat degraded the tire...that i s why the construction needs to be robust...

Every tire...I repeat...every tire should be manually inspected, and tested on force machines...some companies (Cooper for one) does not follow this practice...

[Midtowner]

Yes, but they blow due to a defect...an open splice...foreign material in the compound...could even be a tire that was perfectly built but at some time was ran at too low a pressure and the heat degraded the tire...that i s why the construction needs to be robust...

Every tire...I repeat...every tire should be manually inspected, and tested on force machines...some companies (Cooper for one) does not follow this practice...

And when the government doesn't regulate them and force them to do that, how does the public make it in Cooper's economic best interest (the only thing a corporation will usually respond to) to change their practices?

[pphilfran]

I had to be the guy to issue the recall on some really big tire problems...I would be looking for a specific group of say 200 tires but to find those 200 I would recall tens of thousands...it took some pucker power to call them all back and sort through them all to find those 200 damn tires...

[Midtowner]

I had to be the guy to issue the recall on some really big tire problems...I would be looking for a specific group of say 200 tires but to find those 200 I would recall tens of thousands...it took some pucker power to call them all back and sort through them all to find those 200 damn tires...

And why'd you do that instead of sending bad tires out into the market and saying "to hell with it"?

[pphilfran]

And when the government doesn't regulate them and force them to do that, how does the public make it in Cooper's economic best interest (the only thing a corporation will usually respond to) to change their practices?

The government does regulate and requires extensive testing on groups of tires...high speed testing...heavy load testing...and you ran those dudes till they blew...ever seen a tire explode at 120 mph? Quite a sight! .and you must exceed the tire rating by a certain percentage...Goodyear even bumped the failure point to higher standard the the government required...the problems happen when a company fudges the numbers...and the government does absolutely no pro active auditing of those systems...it is all done in house...

You need to show me where this specific bat was defective...show me where the company knowingly produced a product that was dangerous...

[pphilfran]

And why'd you do that instead of sending bad tires out into the market and saying "to hell with it"?

I hate debating with you...I always lose...

[SCOUT]

I would venture to say that people probably won't continue to buy tires that keep failing. The government isn't the only force in an economic equation.

[pphilfran]

And why'd you do that instead of sending bad tires out into the market and saying "to hell with it"?

Because I knew that I and the company would be liable if we released a tire with a known defect...and it would cost a chitpot full of money...and yes that is the point you wanted to make...

Now, are you done butt ****ing me or do want some more?

[pphilfran]

My only point is that if they knowingly made a dangerous or defective product the case is a slam dunk...

In this particular case I haven't seen evidence that was the case..it might be there but I would want to see more information before making a decision...

[pphilfran]

I would venture to say that people probably won't continue to buy tires that keep failing. The government isn't the only force in an economic equation.

That is true and Firestone paid the price in the Ford problem and the earlier 721 belt package problem...

[pphilfran]

That Ford/Firestone episode was strange..all of the data that we had showed Ford being the driving force in producing the crappy *** tire...but they managed to avoid the negative pub and crammed all the ill will down Firestones throat...

[Midtowner]

Now, are you done butt ****ing me or do want some more?

We're good.

[Midtowner]

In this particular case I haven't seen evidence that was the case..it might be there but I would want to see more information before making a decision...

I saw the bat manufacturer paid $14.5MM out of court. Do you think people pay $14.5MM when they think they can make a good case that they don't owe anything?

[Midtowner]

I would venture to say that people probably won't continue to buy tires that keep failing. The government isn't the only force in an economic equation.

That's why the particular manufacturer we're talking about mainly focuses on rural and low-income customers who will likely not make informed decisions when buying tires.

I was happy to pay a few hundred more to put a good set of Michelin tires on my car. A lot of folks will save that money and take their chances with an off-brand, even though that off-brand isn't really marketed as brand X. They just set them up right next to the decent tires and one set is cheaper and one set is more expensive. The cheaper tires, I guarantee you, do not come with a warning that says WARNING!!! THIS TIRE IS XX% MORE LIKELY TO BLOW OUT THAN OTHER MAJOR BRANDS.

When was the last time you heard about the irregular build quality of any tire manufacturer? Today? In this thread?

[SCOUT]

That's why the particular manufacturer we're talking about mainly focuses on rural and low-income customers who will likely not make informed decisions when buying tires.

I was happy to pay a few hundred more to put a good set of Michelin tires on my car. A lot of folks will save that money and take their chances with an off-brand, even though that off-brand isn't really marketed as brand X. They just set them up right next to the decent tires and one set is cheaper and one set is more expensive. The cheaper tires, I guarantee you, do not come with a warning that says WARNING!!! THIS TIRE IS XX% MORE LIKELY TO BLOW OUT THAN OTHER MAJOR BRANDS.

When was the last time you heard about the irregular build quality of any tire manufacturer? Today? In this thread?
Considering I am reading this thread at the moment, I would say yes. This is the most recent time I heard about it. I guess we should have warning on all products that say "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR." Why do that when you can make a buck suing. It is the American way.

[Midtowner]

Considering I am reading this thread at the moment, I would say yes. This is the most recent time I heard about it. I guess we should have warning on all products that say "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR." Why do that when you can make a buck suing. It is the American way.

No. We have what's called an implied warranty of merchantability, that the goods bought fit their ordinary use. If a tire blows out due to you putting it on your car and using it within normal parameters, you have a lawsuit.

Those lawsuits are what gave folks like pphilfran a profit motive (which is the only thing most companies will do anything for) to recall tires they knew were bad, because to not do so would cost them a lot more.

You never would pay for a tire which would blow out. That's why your argument doesn't fly.

[jumperstop]

But grown men, unless they are playing slow pitch softball, should be embarrassed to use metal bats. IMO

Let me get this straight. Grown men should be embarrassed if they don't play slow pitch softball? And this whole time I was laughing at the wrong people...

[pphilfran]

We're good.


We know each other well enough that it is hard to get under each others skin....

[pphilfran]

I saw the bat manufacturer paid $14.5MM out of court. Do you think people pay $14.5MM when they think they can make a good case that they don't owe anything?

Could be that there ware memos that stated that there was concern about ball speed off the bat...or it could be that the cost of defense and the loss of public opinion outweighed staying the course and going to court...

[okie52]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.

And, coincidentally, make lawyers a lot of money.

[KABOOKIE]

Damn straight!

Coffee can't be hotter than hot and bats can't hit balls faster than fast. :rolleyes:

Took the bait while I was writing my last reply.... You are the victim of a tort reform misinformation campaign. Of course you would know better than a jury and judge who heard and saw all of the evidence and rendered a verdict. You read something on the internet, so we should all bow to your superior wisdom and information. Here are some facts you probably don't know about the so-called hot coffee case:


Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald’s revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonald’s had engaged in “willful, wanton, and reckless” behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;

McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”

You still want to say that case was unreasonable?

bBKRjxeQnT4

Yes and you fallen for the trial lawyers money grab that says big corporations are evil and most be sued for everything. She spilled the coffee on her lap from her own actions. At some point people have to be responsible for their own stupidity. Most people with a brain knew long before Stupid Stella that if you spill freshly brewed coffee in your lap, you'd get burnt. Now coffee can't be hot.

[KABOOKIE]

In this particular case I haven't seen evidence that was the case..it might be there but I would want to see more information before making a decision...

I saw the bat manufacturer paid $14.5MM out of court. Do you think people pay $14.5MM when they think they can make a good case that they don't owe anything?

Jesus, your really are the reason American industry and innovation is lost. Even you said it yourself. Settle out of court for 20,000 but go to court and get millions. If this case would have went to trial they would have lost anyway. The system is rigged in the victims favor. Any one can make a case that big bad evil corporation did this and that to cut cost and therefore compromised safety. They go to trial they lose,$100 million verdict.

When China takes over I hope they execute the sue happy lawyers first.

[C&CDean]

Jesus, your really are the reason American industry and innovation is lost. Even you said it yourself. Settle out of court for 20,000 but go to court and get millions. If this case would have went to trial they would have lost anyway. The system is rigged in the victims favor. Any one can make a case that big bad evil corporation did this and that to cut cost and therefore compromised safety. They go to trial they lose,$100 million verdict.

When China takes over I hope they execute the sue happy lawyers first.

You're a prick, but I heart you right now. Spot on.

Every liberal POS lawyer to the front of the line for the 9mm behind the left ear. Seriously. If somebody can argue this thing to the point of fault on a bat/ball/game/league then they deserve to expire. Jeez. It's ****ing baseball for crissakes.

I remember not wearing a cup while catching and getting a foul tip off the plate square into my jollies. Let's sue the ****ing home plate company. The baseball manufacturer. The bat manufactuer. The league. The parents for paying their measly $10 for me to join the league. No wait, my parents for not leaving their job, following me on my bicycle to the field, then knuckle knocking my dick to make sure I had my protections in place.

This country is ****ed precisely due to this whole attitude. **** the litigous POS bastards who search for this kind of ****.

[SCOUT]

No. We have what's called an implied warranty of merchantability, that the goods bought fit their ordinary use. If a tire blows out due to you putting it on your car and using it within normal parameters, you have a lawsuit.

Those lawsuits are what gave folks like pphilfran a profit motive (which is the only thing most companies will do anything for) to recall tires they knew were bad, because to not do so would cost them a lot more.

You never would pay for a tire which would blow out. That's why your argument doesn't fly.
Where do you say that Cooper is purposefully selling tires that don't fit the implied warranty of merchantability? They are fit for ordinary use, just not as good as more expensive alternatives.

You are right, people won't buy tires that blow out. Your assertion that litigation is the only impact to the profit motive is flawed. You even demonstrate that in your post.

[yermom]

I would venture to say that people probably won't continue to buy tires that keep failing. The government isn't the only force in an economic equation.

how many people need to be killed by defective products before that happens?

[Midtowner]

[quote]You are right, people won't buy tires that blow out. Your assertion that litigation is the only impact to the profit motive is flawed. You even demonstrate that in your post.

Why do you think pphilfran said he actually recalled dangerous tires rather than let them out into the marketplace?

As far as Cooper goes, just Google Cooper and tire blowouts.


In the summer of 2000, three former employees of the company's Texarkana and Tupelo plants testified that the company regularly made use of unsafe manufacturing practices in order to cut costs. The employees' testimony came during a lawsuit hearing against Cooper Tire and was shocking in its revelations.

The workers testified that manufacturing malpractice during the production process included mixing plastic, cans, and chicken bones into the tires. Also, employees regularly used hand tools to pop air bubbles that formed in tire rubber rather than properly discarding the tires. Such practices compromise the tire's integrity, but were considered routine manufacturing practices at the company.

Employees also testified against the company regarding the regular, incorrect use of solvents during the manufacturing process. Cooper Tire was aware that incorrect use of solvents could contribute to a disintegration of the tire, but encouraged it anyway.

Other manufacturing defects included the production of tires from old rubber parts. Outdated rubber stock would be held in storage for long periods of time during which it would dry out. The dried rubber would not take curing well and the treads would not hold together. According to employees' testimony, management at Cooper encouraged employees to continue production using the old stock.

Further, the company's plant at Tupelo had a leaky roof in the first stage of the tire production area. Moisture compromising the integrity of tires is a serious concern. When water is introduced to the tire during the manufacturing process it can contribute to tread separation. Cooper management, however, refused to stop tire production and the faulty production practices proceeded.

Quality and safety flaws at Cooper Tire allowed for increased production and higher profits as the company continued to cut corners in its manufacturing practices. Between 2000 and 2005, the company's tires were responsible for more than 200 fatalities. Cooper has recalled dozens of makes of its tires and continues to face lawsuits from consumers who suffered injuries in accidents caused by the defective tires.

[Midtowner]

Yes and you fallen for the trial lawyers money grab that says big corporations are evil and most be sued for everything. She spilled the coffee on her lap from her own actions. At some point people have to be responsible for their own stupidity. Most people with a brain knew long before Stupid Stella that if you spill freshly brewed coffee in your lap, you'd get burnt. Now coffee can't be hot.

People are going to spill coffee in their laps in drive-throughs.

A reasonable person does not expect that spill to result in life threatening third-degree burns.

You obviously didn't read a thing I posted. Those aren't spin or hype. Those were the facts at trial provided by McDonald's in discovery or by experts.

[Midtowner]

You're a prick, but I heart you right now. Spot on.

Every liberal POS lawyer to the front of the line for the 9mm behind the left ear. Seriously. If somebody can argue this thing to the point of fault on a bat/ball/game/league then they deserve to expire. Jeez. It's ****ing baseball for crissakes.

I remember not wearing a cup while catching and getting a foul tip off the plate square into my jollies. Let's sue the ****ing home plate company. The baseball manufacturer. The bat manufactuer. The league. The parents for paying their measly $10 for me to join the league. No wait, my parents for not leaving their job, following me on my bicycle to the field, then knuckle knocking my dick to make sure I had my protections in place.

This country is ****ed precisely due to this whole attitude. **** the litigous POS bastards who search for this kind of ****.

There are no legal theories to advance any of your rape fantasy claims.

You'd be laughed out of any law office. If not, you'd go down in flames before serious litigation even got going.

In the case of the bat, the kid's brain injuries were caused by a blow to the chest which stopped the boy's heart and caused a hypoxic brain injury. The theory which likely would have been advanced at trial was that the bat manufacturer purposefully made these bats hit harder and faster and failed to warn consumers of the fact that these sorts of bats were less safe.

As a result of this lawsuit, many, if not most leagues are now using wooden bats again and the aluminum bats that are used aren't the suped up ones of the past.

[pphilfran]

Where do you say that Cooper is purposefully selling tires that don't fit the implied warranty of merchantability? They are fit for ordinary use, just not as good as more expensive alternatives.

You are right, people won't buy tires that blow out. Your assertion that litigation is the only impact to the profit motive is flawed. You even demonstrate that in your post.

Cooper make a crap tire...I would never put them on my car or recommend them to anybody...

[pphilfran]

[QUOTE=SCOUT;3500445]

Why do you think pphilfran said he actually recalled dangerous tires rather than let them out into the marketplace?

As far as Cooper goes, just Google Cooper and tire blowouts.

In the early part of the time frame quoted I reviewed cut tire analysis from all competitors on a quarterly basis..Cooper was by far the most inconsistent and we found several that would have failed industry standards...we would buy tires from the open market and compare to Goodyear tires...their belt packages were horrendous...

[REDREX]

Big money lawsuits are the only way to force manufacturers to make safe products.---Bull****, How does a bat maker know how strong the kid is that swings the bat-----Why not sue the maker of the ball it was too hard----how about the coach that had the kid playing in too close. ----What ever happened to assumption of risk ?----What a shock that a batted ball could hit a player

[Midtowner]

---Bull****, How does a bat maker know how strong the kid is that swings the bat-----Why not sue the maker of the ball it was too hard----how about the coach that had the kid playing in too close. ----What ever happened to assumption of risk ?----What a shock that a batted ball could hit a player

You can only have assumption of the risk when the defect is known.

It's not that a batted ball could hit a player, it's due to the fact that the bat has been designed to greatly increase the velocity of the ball coming off of the bat, that ball could hit a player in the chest with such force that it'd stop his heart.

[olevetonahill]

Cooper make a crap tire...I would never put them on my car or recommend them to anybody...

Ive bought em for years and never had a prob. Now ya got me worried fer some reason

[soonercruiser]

An Oklahoma gas can company is going out of business because people kept suing due to setting things on fire. That's litigation for ya. The rest of the world makes fun of us for it.

That's the story that I posted a few week ago, Badger.
The idiot parent threw gasoline from the can on an open fire!
Duh!

[Midtowner]

A great young man in the fraternity chapter I advise was killed when his Cooper tire blew out. The tires were being used well within specifications. The tire blowout caused his vehicle to flip over and crush him.

[REDREX]

You can only have assumption of the risk when the defect is known.

It's not that a batted ball could hit a player, it's due to the fact that the bat has been designed to greatly increase the velocity of the ball coming off of the bat, that ball could hit a player in the chest with such force that it'd stop his heart.--- How is it a "defect" to have a bat that increases the velocity of a batted ball. As I read the article it was a matter of when he was struck---- between heart beats----sending him into cardiac arrest--- Was the timing of the blow to the chest the fault of the batmaker? Sounds to me that the same thing could have happened with a wood bat----or even a thrown ball

[Midtowner]

That's the story that I [osted, Badger.
The idiot parent threw gasoline from the can on an open fire!
Duh!

A jury generally knows that sort of thing.

I can tell you from experience--insurance companies don't settle in big cases like that very easily unless the evidence is pretty overwhelming. From purchasing gas cans lately, I can say the designs have changed over the last few years. I buy my yard toys at Central Power and Equipment in Bethany. They stopped selling other types of gas cans.. only these newer self-sealing sorts.

The nice thing about lawsuits is that in the aggregate, they make products safer for everyone. If this company was making dangerously defective gas cans and couldn't catch up to the times, they deserve what happened to them.

[soonercruiser]

Approved and safe for use by whom?

If the bat company promoted the bats as safe and these folks relied on that, they're not going to let the bat company off the hook.

Innocent people don't pay $14.5MM and allow the settlement to be public.

This is simple Bull sh**!
Many, many times there have been cases where the primary plantiff wants to go to court to prove no liability....but the insurance company makes the decision to cut a deal, and settle out of court!
I even had someone hit me with their auto (hit my car), was clearly at fault (witnesses), and refused to pay my deductible!
The insurance company settled with the other company, unknown to me, and decided it was just cheaper to pay my car repairs; rather than go to court. The other person and their lawyer were the criminals in this case!
Since my insurance paid the reapirs - I was liable for the deductible!

The problem is....to many people "in the wagon", without morals these days; and too damn many lawyers without useful employment!
:neglected:

[olevetonahill]

A jury generally knows that sort of thing.

I can tell you from experience--insurance companies don't settle in big cases like that very easily unless the evidence is pretty overwhelming. From purchasing gas cans lately, I can say the designs have changed over the last few years. I buy my yard toys at Central Power and Equipment in Bethany. They stopped selling other types of gas cans.. only these newer self-sealing sorts.

The nice thing about lawsuits is that in the aggregate, they make products safer for everyone. If this company was making dangerously defective gas cans and couldn't catch up to the times, they deserve what happened to them.

They also drive companys into Bankruptcy then we Import from Chin more inferior junk lose more Jobs to the under 10 workers of Malaysia

[Midtowner]

This is simple Bull sh**!
Many, many times there have been cases where the primary plantiff wants to go to court to prove no liability....but the insurance company makes the decision to cut a deal, and settle out of court!

Comparing some pissant auto negligence case where you apparently didn't even suffer physical injuries to a 14.5MM products liability settlement is idiotic. If you don't realize that, you can't possibly intelligently discuss the subject.

[Midtowner]

They also drive companys into Bankruptcy then we Import from Chin more inferior junk lose more Jobs to the under 10 workers of Malaysia

If the Chinese are building a better product, they deserve to win. If not, they can get sued here.

[pphilfran]

Ive bought em for years and never had a prob. Now ya got me worried fer some reason

The vast majority don't have a problem...but the odds are better at getting a tire with a functional problem from Cooper...

[okie52]

Midtowner...you need to head to the golf course. There are people hit all the time out there by golf balls. You could sue the golf club driver manufacturer for the trampoline effect of its club and hitting it too far and you can sue the ball manufacturer for it going too far.

Could be a gold mine.

[olevetonahill]

If the Chinese are building a better product, they deserve to win. If not, they can get sued here.


The sad part about all this? YOU really think you are doing a Public service

[olevetonahill]

Midtowner...you need to head to the golf course. There are people hit all the time out there by golf balls. You could sue the golf club driver manufacturer for the trampoline effect of its club and hitting it too far and you can sue the ball manufacturer for it going too far.

Could be a gold mine.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bbo/lowres/bbon253l.jpg

[cleller]

It is reaffirming to see that even after all our economic troubles, people losing their jobs, and skyrocketing insurance costs some Americans are still able to stand up and profit from misfortune.

[okie52]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/bbo/lowres/bbon253l.jpg

LOL

[Midtowner]

The sad part about all this? YOU really think you are doing a Public service

Absolutely. Products liability suits are noble. They protect public from dangerous products before that McDonald's hot coffee case, McDonald's had received 700 complaints of their dangerous product causing second and third degree burns because it was 30+ degrees hotter than everyone else's coffee.

In 1968, Ford chose not to install an $11 part in their Pinto which they knew would fail at a certain rate and kill and maim a certain number of people.

This was Exhibit 1 at the trial:



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit One: Ford's Cost/Benefit Analysis
Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage
Associated with the Static Rollover
Test Portion of FMVSS 208

Benefits

Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles
Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle
Total Benefit: 180 x ($200,000) + 180 x ($67,000) + 2100 x ($700) = $49.5 Million

Costs

Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck
Total Cost: 11,000,000 x ($11) + 1,500,000 x ($ I 1) = $137 Million
From Ford Motor Company internal memorandum: "Fatalities Associated with Crash*-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." Source: Douglas Birsch and John H. Fielder, THE FORD PINTO CASE: A STUDY IN APPLIED ETHICS. BUSINESS, AND TECHNOLOGY. p. 28.1994.

The only thing which changed Ford's math was a products liability suit and a big 'ol punitive damages award. Did the lawyers make some money? You betcha. Did they perform a service which saved lives? Yes they did. Manufacturers were put on notice that they couldn't allow for killing people in their business model and have a predictable model.

--at least until tort reform capped punitive damages.

[olevetonahill]

Absolutely. Products liability suits are noble. They protect public from dangerous products before that McDonald's hot coffee case, McDonald's had received 700 complaints of their dangerous product causing second and third degree burns because it was 30+ degrees hotter than everyone else's coffee.

In 1968, Ford chose not to install an $11 part in their Pinto which they knew would fail at a certain rate and kill and maim a certain number of people.

This was Exhibit 1 at the trial:



The only thing which changed Ford's math was a products liability suit and a big 'ol punitive damages award. Did the lawyers make some money? You betcha. Did they perform a service which saved lives? Yes they did. Manufacturers were put on notice that they couldn't allow for killing people in their business model and have a predictable model.

--at least until tort reform capped punitive damages.

Wouldnt a mattered anyway, The Pintoi was a POS that wasnt long for this world anyway

[Midtowner]

Wouldnt a mattered anyway, The Pintoi was a POS that wasnt long for this world anyway

Tell that to the people who were killed by Ford's business model's families.

[olevetonahill]

Tell that to the people who were killed by Ford's business model's families.

You were talking about FORCING Ford to change
Why do you want to try to twist things around to suit yer views?

All I said it It Didnt really FORCE Ford to change jack **** because the Pinto was fast going out of production anyway

[Midtowner]

You were talking about FORCING Ford to change
Why do you want to try to twist things around to suit yer views?

All I said it It Didnt really FORCE Ford to change jack **** because the Pinto was fast going out of production anyway

Did Ford's next car design leave out an $11 part that they knew would kill and maim people?

And the fact that every other manufacturer was put on notice and business practices changed across the board?

[olevetonahill]

Did Ford's next car design leave out an $11 part that they knew would kill and maim people?


You are funny as hell. Keep spinning. You've gone from Those almighty Lawsuits Forcing Ford to change the Pinto to Now They just learned their lesson and wont do that **** any more cause you big bad assed attorney will sue the **** out of em

Stick to you assertion that you made at the start

[Midtowner]

You are funny as hell. Keep spinning. You've gone from Those almighty Lawsuits Forcing Ford to change the Pinto to Now They just learned their lesson and wont do that **** any more cause you big bad assed attorney will sue the **** out of em

Stick to you assertion that you made at the start

You joke, but it's true.

The Ford Pinto case is a case study in just about every business ethics textbook and has really affected the way business is done.

[Mississippi Sooner]

But grown men, unless they are playing slow pitch softball, should be embarrassed to use metal bats. IMO


Let me get this straight. Grown men should be embarrassed if they don't play slow pitch softball? And this whole time I was laughing at the wrong people...

I don't think grown men who play slow pitch softball are capable of embarrassment. Especially if they can brag about "how many dingers they hit" last night.

[REDREX]

I don't think grown men who play slow pitch softball are capable of embarrassment. Especially if they can brag about "how many dingers they hit" last night.---Even older chicks dig the long ball

[jkjsooner]

Yes...but the same thing could happen to a kid when using a wooden bat...you are pulled in for a bunt and the kid swings away...party over...

I would also wager that the bat the brain damaged kid at the plate was just as deadly...if the company produced a bat that it knew was dangerous and continued to make the product I could see the settlement...

I guess we need to start using wiffle balls and bats...

I am not a proponent of aluminum bats...

I've long said that a slug bunt should be illegal in youth sports - including high school. It should be an automatic out. (I originally said dead ball but that could be used to the offense's advantage if a kid was about to be caught trying to steal.)

There's no sense in having the third baseman charge home plate only to have the kid rocket the ball right at him.

[jkjsooner]

My first impression is that this lawsuit is ridiculous.

On second thought I think there must be some smoke there. When the NCAA tested their bats in 2009, they found that a high percentage of them had exit speeds that exceeded regulations even thought the bat manufacturers stated that the bats were certified to meet the regulations.

It wasn't clear if the bats were being modified after purchase but if there's a history of improper certifications then that is a different issue altogether.

[pphilfran]

When the kid got rocked was there any regulation other than weight and size?

[SoonerBread]

For your frame of reference, I'm all in favor of wooden bats.

Mike Coolbaugh, RIP, was hit in the head while coaching first base for the Tulsa Drillers in 2007. The ball was hit using a wooden bat. The point is, wooden or aluminum, a batted ball, if it hits someone in the right (wrong) spot, can kill them. So can a thrown ball.

Many parents allow kids to play baseball instead of football, for example, because of the perception it's a safer game. Truth of the matter, as "slow" and "tedious" as it may seem, there is an element of danger every season, every game, every pitch.

Let us dispell a common myth: aluminum bats don't allow kids any greater bat speed. Bat speed is determined by 1) player age and their strength; 2) technique; and 3) dimensions of the bat, length-to-weight ratio. There was a time when even punch-and-judy hitters could hit moon shots with the suped up metal bats. This was not because of bat speed, but because of the exit speed of the ball off the face of the bat at the moment of contact, known as BESR, Ball Exit Speed Ratio. There was no legislation for such a parameter, only "drop" limitations (length-to-weight ratios and placing maximums on these ratios). There are still "drop" limitations, but the main limitation now is BPF, or Bat Performance Factor. BPF1.00 means the bat performs exactly as a wooden bat constructed of a single piece of wood. BPF is now limited to 1.15, no greater. In addition to BPF, bats need to conform to the BBCOR, Batted Ball Coefficient of Restitution, regulation, which quantifies the reflexivity, or "bounciness," of the bat. It's a calculation of the speed of the ball before and after impact and how much both the ball and bat, in reaction to each other, deform and exchange energy. That's fancy talk for deadening the bats. The intent is to make aluminum and composite bats perform more like wooden bats, while still being resilient to breakage, the main opponent of wooden bat use. BESR is a calculation in determining BBCOR, which is a slightly different measurment than BPF. As of today, there are no leagues that will allow bats not conforming to BBCOR standards. This summer was the last "season" to allow bats with BPF of 1.15 or less without BBCOR certification. Now, starting with the fall leagues, ALL bats must conform to the BBCOR rule.

Now that we're all somewhat educated on the aluminum bat experience, I'll throw in my two cents on this matter. I've seen 11 year old kids throw a baseball 75 mph. I've got one at home that tops 65. At those speeds, solid contact with wooden or metal bats will result in a baseball with enough energy to do serious damage to an 11 year old body, if that body is struck in the magic spot at the magic moment. A thrown baseball at the speeds I mentioned has the potential it kill or seriously injure, especially in young kids. Baseball has the highest death rate of sports for kids under age 15. (http://www.livestrong.com/article/353714-baseball-injuries-statistics-for-practice-and-games/) That's for both direct fatalities and indirect fatalities.

How much of the new metal bat regulations is the result of manufacturers' fears of litigation? How much of it is the result of league coordinators and officials wanting to protect players? How much of it is due to parents wishing to ensure their kid gets to enjoy the sport they love without fear they will be killed or maimed in a catastrophic injury? Arguments could be made for each of those aspects. I've got my opinion as to why, but it doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that bats have gotten safer and will continue to do so, and if someone wants to toot their own horn as to why, well, good for you. Everyone needs a cause.

A product (an aluminum baseball bat) that does what it is intended to do (hit a baseball) in the way the purchaser wants it to do so (hit the bejesus out of it) can not really be considered defective, can it? Doing something better than what is really necessary isn't necessarily defective if the intent of the product is to outperform others on the market, is it? I know every time I put my kid on the mound, or in the batters' box, I'm placing him at risk. I also know he's more likely to be struck by lightning on the field than to be struck fatally by a ball. He's exponentially more likely to be hurt or killed in the car on the way to or from the game or practice, should we unfortunately have an accident. For years, equipment manufacturers developed, produced, and supplied to the market what the market was asking for: bats that hit the everloving hell out of a baseball. And people bought them by the ***-loads, costs and risks be damned. And now we're suing because the product we sought out to allow little Johnny to be able to hit the ball like Josh Hamilton caused little Johnny's friend to die. Who's really at fault? The manufacturers for building what the public asked for? Or the parents who asked for and bought it? How about the parents who, just like me, assumed risk on behalf of their kid for him to be able to play the game? What's their/my culpability? I hate to be this way, but **** happens. Should these bats let 12 year olds perform like superhumans? No. And the only way I can see a bat manufacturer being liable is if the bat(s) perform better than advertised and labelled, and they knew they did, and took no action to correct it. Who's to say the bat wasn't altered post-purchase? Part of the BBCOR certification requires the bat to be built in a way that alteration won't improve performance, but will in fact retard performance, if it follows the letter of the BBCOR law (thicker walls, decreased sweet spot size, barriers behind sweet spot, etc.).

So much has been made of bats, yet no one talks about the baseballs anymore unless bitching about all the homeruns hit in the "live ball" era of baseball. Softball has done so much over the years to reduce ball speed. Combined with stricter bat specifications, softball is the safer of the two games, in terms of catching a ball with your temple or chest cavity. The damn things still hurt when they hit you, and they still fly over the fence, but there's much less risk now than 15-20 years ago. Why aren't lawyers chasing this down in baseball, if their intentions are strictly noble and not financially influenced? I'll answer that: because that's all they want, their cut of the damages. When someone starts suing ball manufacturers, the lawyers will be right there to scoop up all the victims and their families and deliver justice to them. And to me, that's disgusting. Why wait til a kid dies, lawyer? Sue them now, to stop potential injury due to hardness and core density, if your intentions are to effect real change.

Sadly, every safety rule ever written and implemented was written in blood. Also as sad, there's a lawyer standing behind the victims that doesn't see the red of their blood, but the green of the money he has coming his way.

[Midtowner]

We'll never know what information led to the settlement, but you don't get money in the U.S. just because you were hit with a baseball while playing the sport. A payout like this doesn't happen unless there is really damning evidence, for example, that the bat in question exceeded the approved specs. The product actually has to be in some way defective. 8-figure settlements don't happen unless there's something pretty damning.

There's data out there on these aluminum bats. If the Plaintiffs had an expert test this bat and it came back that it exceeded the specs, that'd be step 1. In little league, the pitcher is 45' from home plate (rather than the normal 60'). The Plaintiff would only need show that the increase in speed from this bat which exceeds the required specs wouldn't allow the pitcher to take appropriate measures to turn and protect his heart/body when he could have done so had this been a bat which didn't exceed specs. That'd get you to an 8-figure settlement pretty fast.

[SoonerBread]

We'll never know what information led to the settlement, but you don't get money in the U.S. just because you were hit with a baseball while playing the sport. A payout like this doesn't happen unless there is really damning evidence, for example, that the bat in question exceeded the approved specs. The product actually has to be in some way defective. 8-figure settlements don't happen unless there's something pretty damning.

There's data out there on these aluminum bats. If the Plaintiffs had an expert test this bat and it came back that it exceeded the specs, that'd be step 1. In little league, the pitcher is 45' from home plate (rather than the normal 60'). The Plaintiff would only need show that the increase in speed from this bat which exceeds the required specs wouldn't allow the pitcher to take appropriate measures to turn and protect his heart/body when he could have done so had this been a bat which didn't exceed specs. That'd get you to an 8-figure settlement pretty fast.

All accurate. Not gonna dispute that.

In this particular case, without the benefit of knowing what the precise details are that precipitated the settlement, I'll assume it's the bat maker wishing not to go into a lengthy trial, suffering irrevocable PR damage, and taking the lesser of two evils. I wish I thought they were doing the right thing in trying to make the family whole on account of their tragedy, but that's not likely. Ultimately, two families got rich in this, and without knowing the details, we'll never know if the vicitm's family deserved it. I'm not trying to be insensitive. The lawyers did their job well. It would be cool to know how much said manufacturer netted from sales of the product in question and similar products versus the settlement amount. I'll make another assumption and say that this won't put the bat maker out of business anytime soon.

[olevetonahill]

yea SB and All anyone wanted was to Just make sure this kid was taken care of. The Altruistic lawyer saw this happening and went to the Family out of the Goodness of his heart and said I want to make sure No other child is injured this way So lets punish this nasty bat make and Little League , The family then says Oh thank you We dont want anything for ourselves Just to make sure our little Boy is comfortable

Yea right Gag a magot

[yermom]

so what, you want Johnny Shyster to work for free? maybe he should charge Dead Johnny's parents by the hour.

[olevetonahill]

so what, you want Johnny Shyster to work for free? maybe he should charge Dead Johnny's parents by the hour.

You know thats not what I said
Quit making **** up Ya startin to sound like Icky:watermelon:

[yermom]

so getting paid a percentage of a settlement if they win sounds unfair?

can't someone work on a case for both reasons? how would they pay the rent while taking cases for people if they just took some small amount if they won? what happens if they don't?

[olevetonahill]

so getting paid a percentage of a settlement if they win sounds unfair?

can't someone work on a case for both reasons? how would they pay the rent while taking cases for people if they just took some small amount if they won? what happens if they don't?


Didnt say that either Bro

I simply said That is was Greed NOT Altruism that led to this Or at least Money was the main motivator

[Midtowner]

All accurate. Not gonna dispute that.

In this particular case, without the benefit of knowing what the precise details are that precipitated the settlement, I'll assume it's the bat maker wishing not to go into a lengthy trial, suffering irrevocable PR damage, and taking the lesser of two evils. I wish I thought they were doing the right thing in trying to make the family whole on account of their tragedy, but that's not likely. Ultimately, two families got rich in this, and without knowing the details, we'll never know if the vicitm's family deserved it. I'm not trying to be insensitive. The lawyers did their job well. It would be cool to know how much said manufacturer netted from sales of the product in question and similar products versus the settlement amount. I'll make another assumption and say that this won't put the bat maker out of business anytime soon.

It's more likely that the company had insurance and that's who is actually paying.

[Midtowner]

yea SB and All anyone wanted was to Just make sure this kid was taken care of. The Altruistic lawyer saw this happening and went to the Family out of the Goodness of his heart and said I want to make sure No other child is injured this way So lets punish this nasty bat make and Little League , The family then says Oh thank you We dont want anything for ourselves Just to make sure our little Boy is comfortable

Yea right Gag a magot

Do you expect lawyers to work for free? We take on lots of cases... some winners, some losers. If you take a loser, you're basically working for free, so you hope the winners balance things out financially. The lawyers also have lots of overhead in running their offices and paying the bills while these things drag out.

These sorts of settlements are few and far between. The lawyers who took the case and got some justice for this kid deserve to be compensated. The attorneys here netted a huge financial victory for their clients. The clients probably agreed to some sort of contingency. Parties are free to contract as they see fit. My firm handles big civil cases by the hour or on contingency--client's choice. I can tell you that the time and energy which goes into these cases where the question is one of scientific factfinding and really requires a pretty solid investigation, complete with lab work from very specialized scientists can easily cost clients in the six-figure range and will not necessarily mean they'll win.

[Midtowner]

Didnt say that either Bro

I simply said That is was Greed NOT Altruism that led to this Or at least Money was the main motivator

When you go to work, do you do it for altruism or money?

[jkjsooner]

All accurate. Not gonna dispute that.

In this particular case, without the benefit of knowing what the precise details are that precipitated the settlement, I'll assume it's the bat maker wishing not to go into a lengthy trial, suffering irrevocable PR damage, and taking the lesser of two evils.

I call B.S. on this. I can't see a huge PR hit from the revelation that a ball flies faster and further from the bats from manufacturer X. More likely people would run out and buy that bat. After all, their kid isn't the one being put at risk from his own bat.

The only way there could be a PR hit is if there was a failure in testing or outright fraud in certification. Both of these would also make the lawsuit much more legitimate. I can't see a bat manufacturer settling for such a large amount unless this is the case.

[pphilfran]

I call B.S. on this. I can't see a huge PR hit from the revelation that a ball flies faster and further from the bats from manufacturer X. More likely people would run out and buy that bat. After all, their kid isn't the one being put at risk from his own bat.

The only way there could be a PR hit is if there was a failure in testing or outright fraud in certification. Both of these would also make the lawsuit much more legitimate. I can't see a bat manufacturer settling for such a large amount unless this is the case.

Midtowner...I ain't debating you...so stay out of it...

They will look at the cost to defend...and that research and expert witnesses will not be cheap...then they look at the estimated odds of winning...and how high a reward would be issued if they lost the case...they will also take into account the public sentiment...and sentiment isn't going to good for their case when you have a brain damaged kid sitting their in front of the jury...so they decide to pay a settlement and not risk the cost of defense on top of losing the case and still paying a much larger settlement...

[SoonerBread]

I call B.S. on this. I can't see a huge PR hit from the revelation that a ball flies faster and further from the bats from manufacturer X. More likely people would run out and buy that bat. After all, their kid isn't the one being put at risk from his own bat.

The only way there could be a PR hit is if there was a failure in testing or outright fraud in certification. Both of these would also make the lawsuit much more legitimate. I can't see a bat manufacturer settling for such a large amount unless this is the case.

PR hit = fighting a case against a family whose son was brutally injured by a ball hit from one of their bats. In the court of public opinion, they'd lose every singe second of the case, especially if they fought it hard enough to win it.

That's......kinda why we're having this discussion.......?

[Mississippi Sooner]

I just don't like that pinging sound a metal bat makes when it hits the ball. There's no pinging in baseball!!!

[jkjsooner]

PR hit = fighting a case against a family whose son was brutally injured by a ball hit from one of their bats. In the court of public opinion, they'd lose every singe second of the case, especially if they fought it hard enough to win it.

That's......kinda why we're having this discussion.......?

There would be a percentage of the public who would be swayed by the kid with brain damage and hold it against the bat manufacturer but I can't see this influencing their bat sales or profits.

Most of those swayed by the emotional aspects of the case would not be in the market for a new baseball bat and even if some were they'd rather little Johnny have the advantage especially when Johnny isn't the one who would be put at risk.

I suppose leagues themselves could look at the issue and ban a manufacturer but if the bats really met specifications that would be a hard sell.

What looks worse. The manufacturer selling a bat that is proven in court to meet the specifications 100% (even if they lose the court battle) or or a manufacturer agreeing to a very large settlement for some unknown reason?

There is more to this story...

Like I said, the NCAA found that a significant percentage of their bats did not meet the specifications that they were certified for. My guess is that this particular bat was tested and did not meet the specs.

[jkjsooner]

Midtowner...I ain't debating you...so stay out of it...

They will look at the cost to defend...and that research and expert witnesses will not be cheap...then they look at the estimated odds of winning...and how high a reward would be issued if they lost the case...they will also take into account the public sentiment...and sentiment isn't going to good for their case when you have a brain damaged kid sitting their in front of the jury...so they decide to pay a settlement and not risk the cost of defense on top of losing the case and still paying a much larger settlement...

This was a very large settlement. I don't see a jury giving out such a large award if the BESR of this bat was truly in line with the standards. I don't see defense and expert witness expenses being significant compared to the settlement that they agreed to.

Either the parties who agreed to the lawsuit were stupid or there was something very damaging that was going to be revealed in a trial.

[SoonerBread]

...Like I said, the NCAA found that a significant percentage of their bats did not meet the specifications that they were certified for. My guess is that this particular bat was tested and did not meet the specs.

I said it too...


...the only way I can see a bat manufacturer being liable is if the bat(s) perform better than advertised and labelled, and they knew they did, and took no action to correct it. Who's to say the bat wasn't altered post-purchase? ...

...but I'll forgive you if you missed it cuz my post was ridiculously long.

[jkjsooner]

Let us dispell a common myth: aluminum bats don't allow kids any greater bat speed. Bat speed is determined by 1) player age and their strength; 2) technique; and 3) dimensions of the bat, length-to-weight ratio.

Number 3 is the reason that it is not a myth at all.

Aluminum bats weigh less than wooden bats. Ever pick up a wooden bat? They're heavy compared to any aluminum bat - even the ones I used 23+ years ago.

The sophisticated composite bats were getting lighter and lighter before the regulations changed that. Bat speeds were increasing. It might not be the main reason NCAA baseball scores were approaching basketball scores but it was one of the issues.

Why do you think they now regulate that the weight must be greater than or equal to some function of the length? In high school w (oz) >= l (in) - 3.

[SoonerBread]

You sound like you know what you're talking about using phrases like "common myth" yet #3 is the reason that it is not a myth at all.

Aluminum bats weigh less than wooden bats. Ever pick up a wooden bat? They're heavy compared to any aluminum bat - even the ones I used 23+ years ago.

The sophisticated composite bats were getting lighter and lighter before the regulations changed that. Bat speeds were increasing and that was one of the many problems.

Why do you think they now regulate that the weight must be greater than or equal to some function of the length?

Dude, even wooden bats have different "drop" ratios. Ever pick up a youth wooden bat? I have. Lots. The reason aluminum bat drop ratios are limited is because they can be too far out from what a traditional wooden bat could offer. Cup the end of a wooden bat, notch the end of the handle, de-taper the handle, and skinny the neck, are all ways you can get a wooden bat to a -11 or -12. But you risk having a bat that won't last as long. I sound like I know what I'm talking about because I do. Aluminum bats offer no advantage for bat speed. Lighter bats do, regardless of the material used in construction.

Look, someone brought up bat speed as a reason against metal bats (I call them artificial bats). All I said was that being metal has nothing to do with it. IF that were the case, there would be changes in drop as well as bat performance ratings. For all intents and purposes, drop ratios exist so that kids can select and use a bat that they can handle and that is the right size for their frame. There has been no significant change in drop ratios in the last 12 years.

[jkjsooner]

Maybe the parties settled for public opinion reasons but the settlement didn't help my opinion of them. If they would have gone to court and proven that their bats (and specifically this bat) meets regulations my opinion of them would be stellar and had I been on a jury I would not have awarded any damages (no matter how much I wanted the family to be made whole).

Maybe I'm not typical...

But looking at Lance Armstrong kind of supports my stance. He didn't defend himself and to many that brings up questions on what would have come out in a "trial." As it is there were supposed to be scores of teammates who were going to testify against Armstrong. By not seeing his day in "court" it definitely looks like he has something to hide.


There is one side of this I haven't discussed and that is one of marketing. Despite the regulations that really limit what a manufacturer can do with their bats, the marketing definitely leads one to believe that he or she can hit the ball harder and further if you buy bat X. I suppose that isn't going to look good in trial.

This kind of brings forth the absurdity of marketing. If you do your homework you'll find out that these bats are all pushing the limit of what they're allowed to do so there can't be much variation anymore.

[SoonerBread]

Number 3 is the reason that it is not a myth at all.

Aluminum bats weigh less than wooden bats. Ever pick up a wooden bat? They're heavy compared to any aluminum bat - even the ones I used 23+ years ago.

The sophisticated composite bats were getting lighter and lighter before the regulations changed that. Bat speeds were increasing. It might not be the main reason NCAA baseball scores were approaching basketball scores but it was one of the issues.

Why do you think they now regulate that the weight must be greater than or equal to some function of the length? In high school w (oz) >= l (in) - 3.

Be honest. I do know what I'm talking about, but you'd never heard ball exit speed ratio, bat performance rating, what BPF meant, what batted ball coefficient of restitution or knew what they all meant.

Lot has changed in the last 23+ years. Wooden bats that are chunks of wood are not the norm anymore. You've got to go to Cooperstown to see one. Or get lucky at a garage sale. All wooden bats now offer more length and less weight. Furthermore, you can select your wood material, which will affect weight to length ratio. The standard drop 3 for a wooden bat just isn't the standard anymore. Sorry.

[jkjsooner]

Ugh, SoonerBread, you caught my post before I changed it. After posting I reread the first sentence and realized that my language was a little rude.

[SoonerBread]

If you do your homework you'll find out that these bats are all pushing the limit of what they're allowed to do so there can't be much variation anymore.

You're spot on with this.

The intent behind bat regulation is that all bats will perform the same when compared against wooden bats of equal size and weight. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between on or the other (speaking of metal), as far as ball flight. They'll sound a little different, high end ones will have more durability, etc. But if someone tells you Bat X hits the ball further than Bat Y and Bat Z, and they are marked with the BPF1.15 (which is the standard), they're lying. It's all in their head.

Don't even get me started on those "big barrel" abominations.

[SoonerBread]

Ugh, SoonerBread, you caught my post before I changed it. After posting I reread the first sentence and realized that my language was a little rude.

No worries. I'm fired up about this subject, therefore I'm a little quick on the draw.

[jkjsooner]

Be honest. I do know what I'm talking about, but you'd never heard ball exit speed ratio, bat performance rating, what BPF meant, what batted ball coefficient of restitution or knew what they all meant.

I knew what BESR was. I knew there were minimum weight regulations.

You do know a lot but you were wrong about bat speed.


Lot has changed in the last 23+ years.

If you're talking about non-wood bats then I'd agree. That was the problem.


Wooden bats that are chunks of wood are not the norm anymore.

I'm pretty sure MLB requires that the bats be a uniform chunk of wood. If there has been some improvements MLB has been strongly resisting these.

[SoonerBread]

You do know a lot but you were wrong about bat speed.

I'm pretty sure MLB requires that the bats be a uniform chunk of wood. If there has been some improvements MLB has been strongly resisting these.

Physics doesn't change because you have one type of bat or the other. Bats of the same size can only be swung the same way. Agree to disagree on the bat speed. We're at an impasse.

"Chunk of wood" meaning a Babe Ruthian hunk of lumber weighing 38 ounces with a huge *** handle and long neck, all knicked up and raw looking. Unfinished. That's what that meant. I know a wooden bat must be made from a single selection of lumber.

[soonercruiser]

Comparing some pissant auto negligence case where you apparently didn't even suffer physical injuries to a 14.5MM products liability settlement is idiotic. If you don't realize that, you can't possibly intelligently discuss the subject.

If you can't understand the simple concept of settling a case to the disadvantage of the defendant.....that's idiotic!

[jkjsooner]

Physics doesn't change because you have one type of bat or the other. Bats of the same size can only be swung the same way. Agree to disagree on the bat speed. We're at an impasse.

I don't need a physics tutorial. I understand basic physics quite well.

The distribution of mass is much different in an aluminum bat than a wooden bat. The head of the barrel is much lighter and thus the bat can be swung faster. That is assuming that the weight of the two bats are identical.

You statement about "bats of the same size" implies that a plastic bat can't be swung faster than a baseball bat that has the same physical dimensions. That's absurd. F=ma

Or even if you meant the same weight, take a small barbell and put a weight on one end. Swing it and then turn it around where the weight is closest to your body. Swing it again. You don't think you can swing it faster the second way? t=r x F.

There's your physics lesson since you're so keen on trying to give me one.

[SoonerBread]

I don't need a physics tutorial. I understand basic physics quite well.

1. The distribution of mass is much different in an aluminum bat than a wooden bat. The head of the barrel is much lighter and thus the bat can be swung faster. That is assuming that the weight of the two bats are identical.

2. You statement about "bats of the same size" implies that a plastic bat can't be swung faster than a baseball bat that has the same physical dimensions. That's absurd. F=ma

3. Or even if you meant the same weight, take a small barbell and put a weight on one end. Swing it and then turn it around where the weight is closest to your body. Swing it again. You don't think you can swing it faster the second way? t=r x F.

4. There's your physics lesson since you're so keen on trying to give me one.


1. Much different? Much lighter? Nah. Not that much, if at all, averaging typical models over the whole of the market. But fine, tick your box.

2. You're evidencing your point using plastic bats when all along we've been talking about metal and wood? I'm sorry, I thought we were on the same page when talking about this subject. My mistake. I'll meet you in the middle and intruduce a paper mache bat. What's absurd is your point #2. But fine, tick your box.

3. Right. Let's digress even further and talk about using something in a manner other than intended. That's like arguing about spatulas and me telling you plastic and stainless do the same job and you say, "Huh-uh! What if you used the handle to scoop instead of the blade? See, depends on which brand and which handle is bigger." If you'll remember, I mentioned I only discussed this bat speed **** because someone else brought it up. Bat speed is not germane to the topic. Transfer of energy from the bat to the ball, and how the bat is designed to do that, is, as that's the only controllable variable in the experiment. Speed of swing is totally dependent on too many different factors and is impossible to regulate. If it were that easy to retard bat speed, bats would be designed to do such a thing. But you can't. It's impossible. No two people will do it exactly the same way and in exactly the same manner every single time. Oh I know - invent a bat governor. If it was all about swinging the bat at Warp9, the grown ups would use 20 oz. bats, because they can swing them faster. Come to think of it, you might be on to something. You go the data, you included a formula. Tick your box. Of course, if you had included inertia (for both the bat and the ball) in your calculaton, you might really be on to something.

4. Good Lord. Fine. You win. Whatever. Of course I'm talking about using it the way it was meant to be used. I also meant same size AND weight. AND, not OR. Just like how I originally typed it. And we're also talking about a damn baseball bat, not some shapeless hypothetical object. I'm not modifying the conditons we're discussing, but you're talking about swinging it from the barrel end, adding weight, changing size/shape/weight/material. As much as possible, I'm keeping my point to apples vs. apples. Plastic? GTFOH. I've already agreed to disagree, but you want the win and the snarky quip, so there you go. You got it. Congrats. Go celebrate. Later.
<<<On second thought, just disregard the above. You're right, I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. Have a good day. :)>>>

[C&CDean]

Alls I know is this. You pound a mother****er in the face with a 36" H&B ash bat - or a 36" Easton aluminum bat and the mother****er's face is gonna be equally jacked up. The only difference is one goes "crack," and the other goes "ping."

[SoonerBread]

Tru dat