http://billingsgazette.co...03286.html

Wow..........the jury really got this one wrong

This verdict will open a whole can of worms for toy makers and sporting goods manufacturers.

Debbie,
I know it will never replace Brandon, but I'm sure you will do a lot of good with the money and help keep other families from going through this horrible loss.

I think I don't understand. If the family did not want their son to use a bat they considered dangerous, why did they let him do it?

Did anyone know BEFORE the accident that these bats were made incorrectly?

After reading some of the links, I think I have a better understanding.

After watching 60 Minutes on the dangers of HS football, I think we had better look at whether we even want kids in these sorts of activities which are resulting in so many head injuries and brain damage. There are several things I would not let my boys do, including highway use of motorcycles. Just not worth the risk.

I am so sorry for the Patch family. I graduated from HS with the father of this boy.

OK - I've only read the Gazette article, but from what it states it would appear that this jury's deliberation was very thoughtful and resulted in a balanced, logical decision. The jury rejected the claim that metal bats are defective. What they focused on was the manufacturer's obligation to do more to educate the consumer about the potential risks associated with its product - i.e., provide consumers with better information and clearer warnings. Sounds reasonable so far.

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of catterwauling about frivolous lawsuits and runaway juries. But anyone who has looked below the surface of the McDonald's lawsuit that resulted in a huge award for burns resulting from hot coffee understands that the jury in that case reached a very sane decision based upon ALL the facts.

I think the same will be true of this case. The jury deserves our thanks, not a bunch of second-guessing (unless it's done by a judge or jury hearing all of the evidence in an appeal).

And the family who lost a child deserves only our sympathy -- and especially NOT a flurry of hypothetical questions flung at them from out of left field by a crowd of spectators.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (10/28/2009)]

There was a coach that died by being hit by a ball that was batted with a wood bat. just sayin

And if I read this right, the decision could be applied to wood bat manufacturers as well. Again, the jury found nothing defective in the bat. It was failure to post notice. It can apply to all manufacturers - wood, aluminum, giant bat-shaped frozen popsicles for that matter.

And is it just me, or is anyone else amazed that it took this long for the issue of how vulnerable pitchers are to come up in a court of law. IMO, baseball rules should be changed so that pitchers are given at least as much protection as catchers. Maybe 50 or even 15 years ago that wasn't possible, but if police can be outfitted with bulletproof vests, surely someone can devise a way to provide pitchers with protection from a speeding baseball while still providing them the flexiblity they need to pitch a curve ball...

I don't mean to belabor but I am having trouble understanding. Should every object that could possibly hurt someone have to have a label on it? It seems to me that with sports there is inherent risk simply due to the way the games are played.

I am very sorry for anyone's loss, but I don't understand how a label on the bat would have changed anything if a wooden bat has the same potential.

And Howdy, if this young man was a friend or family I want you to know I cannot imagine that sort of loss. I am simply responding to the article you posted about the outcome of the court proceedings, not to discount anyone's grief.

I see it as 2 different issues. I hope I am not being insensitive. I was thinking you posted the article to discuss the pros and cons of how people see the court's action.

Also, my own son suffered a head injury while skiing. He was wearing a helmet, but he took a calculated risk. He has mostly recovered, but it was a distressing incident.

[This message has been edited by polar bear (10/28/2009)]

hmmm... i don't know how i feel about this just yet. i went to school with brandon, and was shocked when he died. his death was a freak accident, and according to death statistics, highly unlikely to have occurred. all the same, i hope for his parents this adds some closure, and the publicity they want to spread their message of safer baseball.

You were right, Polar, just posted it for the pros and cons of the verdict...Didn't know the family at all...

Had there been a warning sticker on aluminum bats prior to 2003, Debbie, would you have prevented Brandon from playing baseball?

It's a serious question, respectfully asked.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (10/28/2009)]

Just so everyone is clear.....Brandon was a pitcher. He had thrown the ball and it was hit by the batter with an aluminum bat and the ball hit Brandon. If you have ever played baseball/softball, you would definately know that there is a big difference in the way the ball is hit by which type of bat you use....Debbie and Spud are very passionate about this issue, just as we all can be about things or issues that effect us. God Bless you Patch's. Brandon...may you rest in peace. And yes....I know this family.

Yes, this is a very sad situation. Yet, I fail to see how a warning label would have prevented this accident or how is it will prevent something similar from happening in the future. Freak things happen. A couple of weeks ago my oldest son was jogging outside in PE and turned a little funny to avoid tripping over something on the ground and had a pneumothorax. Life is a risk whether there are warning labels to inform us of that fact or not. In the big picture, this verdict doesn't seem all that helpful.

Hope you son is doing better now...A collapsed lung can be dangerous...

This is an interesting question of product liability. Generally when a product is dangerous when used as intended the law requires some kind of warning label to notify users. The key phrase is when used as intended. This is why chain saws usually sport warning labels. So when someone uses a dangerous implement there is an inherent risk. There are also inherent risks in playing baseball which the player assumes by playing. Apparently the jury was convinced that the inherent risks did not include the increased baseball speed caused by using an aluminum bat. I'm sure the decision will be appealed. It will be interesting to see how it turns out in the end.

in this situation the jury did not rely on the facts of the case but instead made a decision based on the emotions of the case. that is why it will be appealed and the bat makers will eventually win

The point of a label is information. Yes, ultimately the individual is responsible for their decisions and behavior. But the more knowledgeable source in a transaction has an obligatin to provide a reaonable amount of information prior to the transaction in order for it to be considered a "Fair Trade." The gray area in responsibility is this: Did the seller provide a reasonable amount of accurate information about the produce for the buyer to make an informed decision. The standard is not hard to understand, but it is very difficult to define.

This jury spoke, and soon so will the judge regarding punitive damages.

If there was proof the company willfully misrepresented the risk of using its product, or if there is evidence that the company was aware of higher risks but did nothing to address them and/or actually suppressed that information, then the judge will award a lot of punitive damages. If it can be shown the the company did nothing nefarious, then the punitive damages should be zero or close to it.

If the company appeals another attempt will be made to define a line that is "reasonable" and everyone will once again be all astir second-guessing a judge and jury who were selected for their ability to render an unbiased and wise decision, who sat for days listening to all the evidence stated directly by the true experts, and then deliberated amongst themselves to weigh all that evidence against precedent and current circumstance.

But for some reason, all of us out here in TVLand think we have a better understanding of the sitution and could render a better decision. I'm thinking, Nah...

Really, ds? Were you on the jury? Were you in the courtroom and did you hear the court's instructions to the jury? Please, tell us what the jury was thinking.

ds - that's a pretty omniscient statement. Can you back up your assertion with facts, or are you just basing that on a gut-feeling? Were you present in the courtroom? Did you divine your conclusions by reading the minds of the jurors with ESP? Did you interview each juror after they concluded their deliberations?

Sorry to pepper you with so many questions, but your conclusion is pretty amazing and even shocking. The logical conclusion is that you are basing your opinion on emotion and reaching an irrational conclusion yourself.

Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd at least like to let you have an opportunity to explain the basis of your assertion, even though it appears that isn't a luxury you have extended to the jury.

According to the Miles City Star, aluminum bats as a whole are not on trial in this case. It is the one particular bat that was used in this incident that was on trial. I'm curious if the other aluminum bats in the dugout at the time had warning labels. I would doubt it. I am also curious as to why warning labels would not be required on wooden bats, as they have caused deaths in the past as well.

I am also curious as to why the bat is at fault any more than the ball. If we take this to its logical conclusion, there are soft-core baseballs available. Why are players not advised as to these risks?

I am absolutely mocking no one in my post. I am trying to assess the line between liability and accidental tragedy. Once these warnings are printed on the bats, and another death occurs, what happens then? Do we determine that the player took a calculated risk, and lost, and thus the accident is a tragedy, and not the fault of a third party?

And, Steve, I disagree that we should not discuss this issue. Many of us on this forum have children. If, as this lawsuit implies, parents should be fully informed of the risks being taken by our children in playing sports (or anything else for that matter), discussion and information are key to making educated decisions.

Steve Craddock wrote:

The point of a label is information. Yes, ultimately the individual is responsible for their decisions and behavior. But the more knowledgeable source in a transaction has an obligatin to provide a reaonable amount of information prior to the transaction in order for it to be considered a "Fair Trade." The gray area in responsibility is this: Did the seller provide a reasonable amount of accurate information about the produce for the buyer to make an informed decision. The standard is not hard to understand, but it is very difficult to define.

Maybe OSHA Hazwoper training for little league is in order.

Denise - As always, I'm impressed with the thoughts you put forward - especially about the contributing risk factors associated with the type of ball used. That's certainly an element of this equation that I haven't heard discussed - it will be interesting to see if it was explored at the trial.

And just to be clear, I very much agree that this topic should be discussed, especially by parents with kids who are active in sports.

My issue is with people who disparage the jury's verdict. It's the best system ever invented in the entire history of the world for arriving at the elusive thing called justice - yet some feel they could render a better verdict through some divine ability that they and they alone possess. To them I say: Give me a break!

Im not trying to be insensative or rude or mean any type of disrespect to anybody, but when a child signs up to play football we all know they are going to get hit or possibly run over by another child and possibly hurt. When a child signs up for soccer we all know that the child will probably get kicked or tripped or hit with the soccer ball. At one time when a child signed up for baseball we all knew that that child would get scrapped up sliding or diving for a ball get hit with ground balls and sometimes get hit with balls that have been thrown by either a pitcher or a fielder. These are all risks that come with the games or sports that we as children or our children are playing. We can label every inch of ever instrament that we use or play with but the fact of the matter is things like this are going to happen. No one thinks of baseball as a dangerous sport but as a pitcher myself who played with Brandon, he as well as any other pitcher to plays the game would be the first to tell you that getting hit is part of the game we all love. I know for a fact that it wasnt the first time he got hit weather it was in the thousands of hours of practice or in games it just happen to be the perfect speed the right hitter and the position of brandons follow through. Im just saying that all of us would have to be completely blind to not know that with every thing we do we have thousands of things that can hurt us weather they have labels or no labels and we shouldn't allow that to detour us from allowing our kids or even us to continue to enjoy the sports and activities that we do.

I guess I must not understand the verdict cause I fail to see how a sticker or a piece of paper that was placed on the bat or given to the buyer of the bat may have prevented this awful tragedy. Again i mean no disrespect what so ever. We can label every thing and write books on how dangerous the tools of sports can be but how does that prevent anything. You can't control every aspect of everything cause risks are everywhere i can think of hundred of things that could happen to me between waking up in the morning and walking to the kitchen for breakfast.

What you said was perfectly logical, Fastenal.

Logic and this whole thing went their separate ways a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng time ago.

Im just saying in the most respectful way that anyone who knew brandon knew that he would have used or may have used the same exact bat that was used by the other player its just a tool of the game. As would any player that was playing at the time. If you think of all the times that the bat was used in a season and practice by probably every player on that team and this was probably the only time that the ball was hit at the pitcher at just the right speed at just the right hieght at just the right angle the sheer mathamatics of wat took place are mind boggling. But if that ball was hit at that velocity but at an upward angle and was sent sailing over the fence for a huge homerun everyone would have simply said that the ball was crushed and laughed about how hard it was hit. Again I mean no disrespect in any way and I am not trying to be insensitive at all.

[This message has been edited by FASTENAL (10/29/2009)]

Ah, memories ...

http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=11078
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=24389
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=24373
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=20594
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=29257
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=30970

Warning labels are intended to put the user on notice that what they are using can cause injury. All the label does is protect the manufacturer from being sued when injury occurs to someone using the product. The label is not intended to disuade anyone from using the product. It only puts one on notice to the risks. People sometimes think that labels are magic and will prevent mishaps but they don't. They just provide information. We all take risks every day. Stepping off a curb is a risk. Driving a car is a BIG risk as is riding a bike on a city street. We've just accepted the risk because the benefit is greater. Most of life is that way. What happened to Brandon and his family is terrible. The jury's verdict indicates that the bat's danger was greater than the risk Brandon assumed by playing. As I wasn't privy to the trial I can't pass judgment on the correctness of this verdict. We'll see what the Montana Supreme Court holds on appeal.

Wendy,
Are you an attorney?

Wendy went to law school at Loyola University a few years back and passed the bar a few years after that, which makes me suspect she is either a lawyer or wasted her money.

I'm pretty sure she passed the bar at the Crossroads a couple of times as well... but I digress...

Loyola!?!?! Whatever gave you that idea? It's Tulane, class of '87. Go Green Wave!!

Richard, I may have passed the bar at the Crossroads a few times but unlike you, I never stopped at it.

Touche.

I was elated to hear that the jury ruled in favor of the Patch family. Perhaps this will allow the family to heal from this tragedy.
Balls that come off of aluminum bats travel at a faster rate than those that come off of wooden bats. It seems that we as a nation have become so obsessed with sports that we fail to consider the players.

This following is from the Helena paper.

"Baseballs hit with aluminum bats, such as the one used in that American Legion game, only give pitchers milliseconds to respond in a defensive stance, the plaintiffs said. Plaintiff's attorney Joe White said the average time needed by a pitcher to defend a batted ball is 400 milliseconds. Patch had 378 milliseconds to respond, he said.
Eyewitnesses called by the plaintiffs said they could not see the ball between the time it left the bat and when it ricocheted off Patch's head. Patch collapsed on the mound. He died as a result of his injuries about four hours later."

http://www.helenair.com/...03286.html

Balls come off metal bats faster than wood bats. For those of you who need some "proof".

http://paws.kettering.ed...mwood.html

"The average speed of a hit off the fastest bat, a metal model, was 93.3 mph; the average off the slowest bat, a wooden model, was 86.1 mph. Only 2 percent of hits made with wooden bats exceeded 100 mph, while 37 percent of the hits with the fastest metal bat more than 100 mph, according to Joseph J. Crisco, associate professor of Orthopaedics at the Brown Medical School."

http://www.sciencedaily....065531.htm

Wendy,

Tulane? No kidding, great school. One of the south's best.

Me, Hendrix. We played you guys in several sports.

I MIGHT have graduated a few years after you though.

Boy I sure miss crawfish boils, can't seem to find anyone up here with the same appreciation.

I'ts my turn now to say something. I'm not nearly as literate as most of you bloggers seem to be but I'll try to get my point across.

Im an older guy who grew up when the Little League was just getting started in America. Back then we had rubber cleats and rules about sliding into base and there were no aluminum bats.

We had hottly contested games just as they do now. Our parents were proud of us when we played sports, and sad along with us when we lost. These were simpler times when safety was of great concern to the parents and children alike. We needed no advantage of drugs or equipment to play the sports we played. There was even insurance policies you sometimes needed before you could play. (Bear with me I'm painting a mental picture here.)

Back then, the only metal bats that were allowed, were used in school softball programs, and only then because they lasted so long even when left out in the rain. We didn't need metal bats to play the kind of baseball that everyone loved to play and cheer for. What would be the loss to the game is metal bats were not allowed? The Big Leaguers don't need 'em. Can anyone tell me what the loss would be if the rules were the same for the kids as they are for the Big Leagues?

The issue here is the safety of our kids, and the answer is that if we give them enough time to save themselves from injury at the expense of losing the metal bats, the some good has come from this.

There is always risk with sports, but when it comes to our kids,If we can make decisions so simple as this to make them safer without losing any quality of the game,It's a "NO BRAINER"

This made the national news today. I happened by a TV with HLN on while they were reporting the story.

Not just national news, this made it on the front page of reddit. That means a LOT of people have or will read it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/W..._aluminum/


*warning* The comments in these threads are made predominantly by people completely unassociated with Montana let alone the Patch family. Read at your own risk if you have an emotional connection to Brandon's accident.

Jim,
Thank you for the great post. Well said.

jim, while I agree with your post. I coached Brandon he was a great peson I remember his broken arm in the eight grade. I respect his family. with that said, their has been conversation about warning stickers on the product I would think the bat was purchased by the other team or the MCYB so how could he read the label. I would think that the Patches would sign a wavier consenting to participation. They probably even bought him a steel bat. I feel it was a very unfortunate accident. They happen just by walking accros the street.

Some day it's gonna be a different game...

Pedro steps up to the plate... as he waits for Jones to climb down the mound to take the customary inventory of warning labels on the slugger's new stick

Uh oh, out comes the red 'phone my attorney' flag. Looks like it's time to go to commercial...