Louisville Slugger Pays $850,000 in Tort Claim
Aluminum vs. Wooden Bats
The gist of this claim is that an 18 year old did not have proper warning as to the danger of metal bats. The additional time to react and velocity
was undisclosed. Brandon Patch was killed. This bat was sold by Sports Authority with the distinct labeling that it was tested for kids.
Growing up, I remember the middle school league mandating that aluminum bats were no longer to be used. It is an industry custom that metal bats are dangerous because stronger batters can hit with dangerous force. Look at high schools, colleges, and MLB baseball. Further, Lousiville Slugger was on notice by a string of cases.
BRETT v. HILLERICH & BRADSBY – In 2002, Brett won a jury verdict which totaled $150,000. The money was paid by Louisville Slugger and they did not appeal the jury verdict.
PALMER v. GRAND SLAM, INC – 16-year-old Chris Palmer was hit in the face with a ball hit off an aluminum bat during batting practice. Palmer lost his right eye, among other injuries… no bat company was sued because they could not find out what bat had been used.
BAGGS v. LITTLE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL – While the damage was caused by a ball hit off an aluminum bat, Baggs and his family are suing Little League International because Little League had just increased the eligible age limit by 90 days… Baggs was hit by a ball hit by one of those previously ineligible players.
The makers of Louisville Slugger, Hillerich & Bradsby, clearly knew there was a risk. It would only be reasonable for a company in that position to add at least a small written notice that would absolve them of liability.
Patch went into convulsions on the field in front of a horrified crowd and died within hours from his injury. – AP
Curt Drake, one of the family’s attorneys, said the jury arrived at the total by awarding $792,000 to Brandon Patch for his lost earnings and pain and suffering, an amount that goes to his estate. The family was awarded $58,000 for their pain and suffering and damages. The graphs visualize this measurable difference.
This looks a great case to illustrate a liability claim.
1. Duty- Care was owed by the defendants to the plaintiff that they be reasonable informed as to the usage of this product.
2. Breach- This can take the form of directions or an illustration that were not present on the bat. Brandon Patch was not forewarned that his conduct could result in this type of injury. Nor was it was disclosed that additional danger may arise from reasonable use by adults . They were on notice by a string of previous cases, this breach in my opinion was reckless because they should have known.
3. Cause- It was argued by the defense that although they may have been in breach of duty, that this suit failed on cause. The assertion was that this type of injury would have occurred anyway, the bat was merely consequential.
In my opinion this was the difficult point; was Brandon killed but-for the negligence of that metal bat? It was a foreseeable injury… Would a wooden bat have sufficed to cause similar injury? A baseball traveling at additional speed 1) impairs reaction time 2) increases injury because of velocity. Would that extra time and lessened impact of a wooden bat have saved a life – certainly it would have improved Brandon’s chances. I haven’t seen the autopsy so I couldn’t speak directly to the exact type and scope of injury which might lend details.
The increased risk, although not being determinative, supports a conclusion that the metal over a wooden bat was at least a substantial factor in the injury.
4. Harm- Brandon Patch is dead.
Verdict for the aggrieved family is not outrageous. It is good social policy to force product manufacturers to take steps to protect individuals in society. Using a formula to encapsulate a lifetime of lost productivity is not unreasonable. In fact it is fair.
I find that the end user does not necessarily have the reasonable knowledge (of an average community member) of the enhanced danger. With some additional text this could all have been avoided…. or at least the lawsuit. Torts provide an avenue for social justice.
The history of the Patch case is a long one. But when the Patch family had to bury their son in 2003, their main goal was to have aluminum bats banned from youth baseball in Montana. The Patch family thought that they would be able to get a law passed in the Montana legislature doing just that. But after some bat company representatives went out to Montana (according to the Patch family), all that was passed was a “resolution,” that is, it was suggested that kids not use aluminum bats in Montana. http://skallas.wordpress.com
Note—— This Duty-Breach-Cause-Analysis was done for illustrative purposes….
Product Liability is governed under the UCC code.
Under the Restatement of Torts (3rd) Products Liability:
Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.
The difficulty with negligence is that it still requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct fell below the relevant standard of care. However, if an entire industry tacitly settles on a somewhat careless standard of conduct, then the plaintiff may not be able to recover even though he or she is severely injured, because although the defendant’s conduct caused his or her injuries, such conduct was not negligent in the legal sense. As a practical matter, with the increasing complexity of products, injuries, and medical care (which made many formerly fatal injuries survivable), it is quite a difficult and expensive task to find and retain good expert witnesses who can establish the standard of care, breach, and causation.
I think I would modify your cause section a bit. It isn’t a but-for the use of a metal bat instead of a wood bat (it was the end-user who made that choice or the league that allowed it). If the suit is against the company, then the question is about proper warnings on the products identifying potential dangers. But for the lack of those warnings (whatever they should reasonably be), would the injury have occurred?
I think that is a tough question to answer. I’m trying to find the court opinion to read how they concluded.
I have not seen the court documents yet as its fresh; Montana has a terrible website.
Cause is the issue. Duty and Breach are satisfied by Torts (third). What is the proximate cause of Brandon’s injury? I think that the factor substantial factor test, which I mentioned, offers the best theory of recovery. Perhaps comparatively it was 60-40? I don’t know… I suppose that All Things Considered, the metal bat was found by the jury to be the substantial cause. Actually I was thinking about the $850,000 judgment as well, and I think that using a comparative theory they will ultimately have to reduce it based on fault.
My thoughts on this varies. 1. If the Player who hit the ball was 6′2 200 lbs, worked out alot, he would have much more power than a 5′4 150lb person who didnt work out much. 2. If the pitcher who was hit with the ball, same thing if he could throw the ball at 100 mph, versus a pitcher who could only muster 70mph.. that makes a difference on the amount of energy that is released when a batter hits the ball. 3. The baseball in question.. 4. the degree of fatigue with the pitcher,
the list gets longer and longer.
Allum bats, versus wooden? Very muscular player versus non muscular? To put blame on a vendor for not having a warning on a baseball bat sends messages to inventors to label each and every thing on the market with warnings. I firmly believe in accountability, and warnings.. But when will it stop. Should i sue Joe Weider for making and distributing workout equipment, that made another person much stronger than an average person, and that said person threw a baseball with such force, that the kinetic energy released by a batter which also utilized Joe Weider’s weight training equipment, hit the baseball with such force that it hit my hand and shattered my hand?? Is it the ball, the players, the bat, or the training regimen at fault? Or was it an accident?
I am glad you pointed this out. Additional factors are absolutely critical for discerning liability. The role of the jury is to put all these factors together determine if an aluminum bat fulfills cause. Most jurisdictions would requiring a finding of fault at 50/51%.
When will it end? In my personal opinion, I think that in this case the factors show that product manufacturers were on notice that it cause harm. What needed to be expressed to the consumer was that a stronger (older) person could hit the ball with such a force that a serious injury would result. Hypothetically, what if it could be shown that given the players attributes, the aluminum bat created an force that was the definitive difference between minor and major injury.
Maybe he should know that that aluminum bats are inherently more powerful. Well I think thats unconvincing, from personally asking some people, they did not know of the power difference.
As a matter of social policy, I think it’s a good idea to err on the side of caution and force companies to disclose any pertinent information.
The question of Joe Weider weight training would fundamentally alter the scenario. I would argue that the person who now processes superior strength is under a duty to inform the pitcher – i.e. if the pitcher was a major league distance it would be argued that he was abiding by a reasonable standard, whereas if pitcher was a little league (short) distance then that is inviting undue danger. Also in this scenario, one person knows of the potential danger whereas with the aluminum bat both parties would not have known of the danger.
Christ, this is dumb.
1) how is the bat company supposed to warn the pitcher, who did not purchase the bat, did not use the bat, and was standing 60′-6″ away from the bat, of the inherent risks involved with others’ use of the bat? i highly doubt that a small, non-discript advisory on the barrel would suffice.
also, aren’t there already a ton of “warnings” on the packaging and marketing materials of these bats, e.g., “Use our bats to hit farther, harder, etc.” and i’m sure the bat company wouldn’t mind too terribly if they were required to inform the batter that their bats effectively turn all baseballs into lethal weapons. That’s like requiring liquor bottles to carry a warning that consumption of alcohol may result in the consumer having WAY TOO MUCH FUN!!!!
2) It’s freaking Baseball! sports are inherently dangerous and anyone who doesn’t know that doesn’t play sports very well. do you think shane victorino has a claim against the manufacturer of the baseball that hit his hand the other night if he can show that baseballs are too hard? should he sue aj burnett for throwing too hard?
3) torts is the worst class ever.
“Brandon Patch was pitching for the Miles City Mavericks when the ball ricocheted off his head, eventually falling behind first base after traveling as high as 50 feet in the air. His parents claimed that Defendant failed to warn of the risks associated with the use of aluminum bats in the game of baseball.” http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=&s=MT&d=41830
Hypothetically, what if the bat was “adult size”. The foreseeable use would be by older and stronger people. Suppose the bat was tested for kids and labeled as such because it was found to be unsafe for adults. As a social policy, I would want companies in such a position to be liable for the lack of proper warning. Perhaps, this warning would be accompanied by an instruction for the pitcher to be farther away – at a distance shown to be substantially safer.
1) according to the defense attorney, the ball that hit patch was traveling at 99.8 mph and virtually all home runs hit with wooden bats travel at speeds over 100 mph. http://www.helenair.com/news/article_1368a56a-be08-11de-a668-001cc4c002e0.html
2) where are you getting this “tested for kids” label from? i haven’t seen this anywhere else on the internet. however, assuming the facts of your hypothetical, if the bat company made a finding that the bat was unreasonably dangerous for adult use and did not disclose this information then they may be subject to liability. but i very seriously doubt those are the facts of the case.
3) “Perhaps, this warning would be accompanied by an instruction for the pitcher to be farther away – at a distance shown to be substantially safer.”
clearly, you are not a bowler. i seriously want to hit you several times in the head with an aluminum bat for even suggesting this. that would be like requiring bath tub manufacturers to instruct the user to wear a helmet while in the shower. both instructions would defeat at least half the purpose of the respective activity.
4) does montana law not recognize the concept of assumption of risk? we’re not talking about a 10 year old playing pitching machine ball; patch was an 18 year old adult and had been playing baseball his whole life. he, no doubt, had seen balls whiz by his head thousands of times in his life and, yet, continued to play the game.
1) That is what the Defense says, what does the Plaintiff say?
2) I remember reading that was issue of inadequacy. Either way however, the product was not labeled properly for what it was being used for.
3) If the manufacturers found that adults using this bat resulted in higher risk of injury, as a consumer I would want to know the risks and recommendations. Although it might seem unfair to hold the bat manufacturers liable, you have to see that they are in a better position to spread the loss than is the individual family. Plus, reasonable minds did find that this warning was not simply nominal.
4) Assumption of Risk. I think that the bat manufacturers are responsible for making bats that are safe as per the law. As soon as Westlaw gets this case up I’ll give you more exact details when I review it.
3) I like torts, haha