Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As understandable as the grief of this family is, the lawsuit they filed is patently ridiculous. Their son was hit in the chest by a ball hit back at him while pitching a baseball game. His heart stopped and he went without oxygen for 15 minutes or more, sustaining brain damage. And the family is suing the manufacturer of the baseball bat, the store that sold the bat and - most bizarrely - Little League; he wasn't even playing in a Little League game, it was a Police Athletic League game.
Look, I understand that the family is grieving, but we have got to get beyond this childish idea that every time a tragedy happens someone has to be blamed for it and has to pay out some huge cash settlement over it. Playing any sport carries risk. Pitchers get hit by comebackers. You know that when you play the game. Stop blaming people for a fluke event.
Politics
Comments
What amazes me is that no one present seems to have had a clue how to perform CPR. It seems he was playing in an organised league, so I would have expected rules to be in place that require at least one adult for first aid and CPR skills to be present.
Posted by: John Doe | May 20, 2008 9:51 AM
Gotta sue somebody. What's the point of a potential tragedy is you can't make some easy money from it? That would be the real tragedy.
How was anybody to know that hitting balls around could in any possible way ever be even slightly dangerous?Or it's possible that they're the type of people who think that bad things dont just happen to good people for no reason. It's always somebody's fault. ALWAYS. If they didn't sue, that would mean it was their kid's fault, ie: he was asking for it.
Posted by: tincture | May 20, 2008 9:55 AM
...to be followed in short order by the formation of a non-profit group dedicated to passing legislation requiring all young baseball players to wear titanium exoskeletons to prevent this from ever happening again.
Won't you think of the children?
Posted by: Bg Porter | May 20, 2008 10:03 AM
Nah, just ask the fundie wingnuts who to sue:
"goodidit". - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Oops must of been that pesky satan... of course "goddidit". -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 10:11 AM
I think you're a bit off base on this one. It's clear by now that the use of aluminum bats will cause more injuries and deaths than wooden bats. The main reason that little leagues and amateur leagues use aluminum is cost. The aluminum bats are more durable, and hence are cheaper to use in the long run.
In most other circumstances that I can think of, especially in youth sports, we've moved toward increased safety, even at greater cost. Think of how much more common helmets and pads are compared to a generation ago. Why is it reasonable for youth baseball to move in the opposite direction? If a league knowingly chooses more dangerous equipment (when the safer equipment is widely available and more traditional), why shouldn't they be held accountable?
I agree that some of the targets of the lawsuit may be ill-considered, but I reject your concluding sentences, which suggest the risk is a natural and acceptable part of the game. The use of aluminum bats is an ill-considered trade-off.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 10:13 AM
mph,
Risk IS a natural and acceptable part of the game; you're right though, that if aluminum bats cause an unnecessary level of risk, that is itself an issue.
Posted by: Michael LoPrete | May 20, 2008 10:23 AM
I'm from the UK, and hence no expert on baseball, but I imagine that even fewer injuries would be caused if a foam-rubber bat were to be used, or perhaps even no bat at all. Is anyone pushing for these options?
Posted by: philbert | May 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Michael, I agree that some level of risk is natural and acceptable. When I wrote "the risk", I was referring specifically to the increased risk of dangerous comebackers from aluminum bats. It's a regression where we should expect and demand progress.
See also:
http://www.njit.edu/features/sceneandheard/saferbats.php
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/alumwood.html
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 10:30 AM
Anyone want to find the risk of death from a "comeback" off an aluminium bat, as opposed to, say death by gunshot wound, from the CDC website? (I'm too dumb to navigate it, the ABS site is much clearer). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 10:35 AM
mph,
I'll grant the assertion that metal bats are more dangerous, but I'm 48 years old and way back when I was 10 and in Little League, we used metal bats. I don't think the tradition argument holds up here. Moreover, the fact that they have been used for several decades also suggests that parents should be cognizent of the risks when they sign their kids up. Its quite possible that football would be much safer with helmets that had exterior padding, the fact that such helmets are not used does not warrant a lawsuit because they could be used. Or, to stay with baseball, why not use a "softer" ball so players hit by pitches are not at risk? There are inherent risks in athletics and, in fact, the lamentable death of this child should be mourned, but it should be considered an accidental consequence of the activity.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | May 20, 2008 10:36 AM
This is a well-recognized (but fortunately rare) event in sports. I have seen it in hockey as well. The mechanism of death is that when a hard object strikes the sternum, the impulse gets transmitted to the heart immediately below, and sets off a lethal arrhythmia, probably ventricular fibrillation. There is no physical damage to the heart. I doubt that a wooden bat would have made a difference.
How to avoid this: Use a chest protector in the infield? Play with nerf balls?
It's also my understanding that CPR is usually unsuccessful in these events. This may explain the 15 minute heart stoppage.
For more info, google "commotio cordis"
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 20, 2008 10:38 AM
Dave, my point is that there was a traditional baseline--wooden bats--and the leagues deliberately decreased safety from that baseline, to save money.
This is quite a different scenario, in my opinion, from failing to introduce new safety measures (as you and philbert describe).
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 10:41 AM
Bruce, the difference with wooden bats is usually ascribed to reaction time (avoiding the impact) rather than the severity of the impact.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 10:45 AM
Aluminum bats are used because they are cheaper in the long run than wood bats. The reality is and has been for some time that aluminum bats propel a ball much faster than wood. But, there is only one reason why: aluminum bats could be manufactured to perform identically to wood but they are not because the bat manufacturers are selling to a consumer that wants to hit a ball harder and farther. Little League and other organizations should undertake measures to regulate the launching speed of a bat just as golf has done with golf clubs. When safe products are not produced purely for monetary reasons, a product liability claim cannot be considered clearly frivolous.
Posted by: doyle | May 20, 2008 10:45 AM
mph,
I don't think you have any evidence that the leagues deliberately decreased safety to save money. Certainly, when metal bats were introduced it was to save money on equipment, however, I have seen nothing to indicate that at that time (40 years ago, or whenever it was) that coaches (or anybody making these decisions) knew that metal bats were more dangerous. The complaints at the time, and to some purists today, is that the ball didn't sound right coming off the bat.
The point at which there may be some culpability is in the increasing technology that goes into bat making that allows for more "pop" on the ball as it comes off the bat...much like the technology that goes into recent innovations in golf-club (Driver) design. I know that metal bats are now "better" in this sense at the college level, but I am unsure how far down the line that goes.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | May 20, 2008 10:48 AM
"It's also my understanding that CPR is usually unsuccessful in these events. This may explain the 15 minute heart stoppage."
The kid is still alive. It would seem his heart stopped and was later restarted. That does not indicate trauma of a nature that renders CPR ineffective.
CPR is not only, even mainly, about getting the heart re-started if it stops. It is about maintaining sufficient circulation to supply the brain and other organs with enough oxygen to prevent cell death. Had CPR been applied whilst awaiting an ambulance there is a good chance he would not have suffered the brain damage he did.
Knowledge of CPR should be a requirement for everyone, but especially those who coach sport.
Posted by: John Doe | May 20, 2008 10:50 AM
What's the difference between a baseball coming at you at high speed off a wooden bat and one off a metal bat? Is there some significant increase in speed off of the metal one or is just 2-5 mph? Also, how was this kid pitching that his front chest area was completely exposed to an incoming baseball? From what I remember, and from watching countless baseball games over the years, a pitcher should end up with their throwing arm basically facing the batter.
Posted by: llDayo | May 20, 2008 10:50 AM
In recent years in the U.S., safety has become an all-consuming mantra. Not that mph phrased it this way, but we frequently hear people say "it's not safe," when the proper phrasing would be, "it's not as safe as some alternative.
From an economic perspective, every decision we make is about tradeoffs, and safety is just another value we have to trade off with other values, such as saving money.
I don't have enough information to make a judgement on the particular case. But the implication that trading off safety to save money is necessarily bad is unsustainable. But we have the opportunity for a good natural experiment--with all the different youth baseball leagues, let's encourage some to switch to wooden bats, raise their fees to cover the increased costs, and see how the parents respond. That is the real test: are the parents willing to pay for the increased safety? If this story is well promulgated, they very well might be.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 20, 2008 10:51 AM
Still no figures on number persons per hundred thousand killed by being struck on the sternum by a baseball from an aluminium bat. I'm guessing the nubmer is extremely low. How could this be reasonably considered a forseeable outcome as determined by a reasonable person? -DJ
Posted by: Dingojack | May 20, 2008 10:52 AM
These kind of things happen sometimes; you can't really duck a ball moving at 50+ miles an hour when you're only, what, 5 yards away? 7 maybe? I'd imagine more people die a year from shark attacks or lightning strikes than from comebacks. I'd agree that, though tragic, its a thin argument that points anyone out for litigation in this situation (from the information provided, at least). I can understand the impulse of the parents to see someone punished for their child dying though; its hard to face that impersonal forces and bad luck can be responsible for something so life-shattering.
Posted by: Julian | May 20, 2008 10:56 AM
I'm with Ed on this one. I played baseball for several years, and obviously hundreds of thousands of other people have as well, some for most of their lives. This was a fluke, plain and simple. I used to pitch, and I caught a few comebackers, including a couple in the chest. I'm not dead, as far as I know. If this were a statistically significant danger (i.e. hearing about it more than once in, say, a decade), I might see this lawsuit as serving a purpose. As far as bats go, every little league I've been involved in used both wooden and aluminum bats. If that was also the case here, why not sue the kid that chose the aluminum instead of the wooden?
Posted by: Jason I. | May 20, 2008 10:57 AM
Also this was a Police Athletic League so presumably there were lots of cops around...none of them knew how to do CPR? Remind me not to colapse from a heart attack in US Cop Shop. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 10:58 AM
Umm BTW the kid isn't dead, but brain damaged due to the long period of lack of oxygen to the brain. CPR would have reduced this risk. -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | May 20, 2008 11:02 AM
...and what happens when a wooden bat shatters (which an aluminum one will not do) and a piece of wooden shrapnel happens to nail some kid in the jugular?
I'm guessing the same law firm will troll for another suit, saying that all kids baseball should be done with a Wii...
Posted by: NJ | May 20, 2008 11:03 AM
James, your points are true, of course. There are cost-benefit tradeoffs for everything. But one way those costs are incurred is through lawsuits after "something bad" happens (cf. the Pinto design decisions).
It wouldn't make sense to say that the cost-benefit calculation for aluminum bats favors their use, and then say that the subsequent lawsuits are frivolous, and should be thrown out because the injuries are so rare or unforeseeable.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 11:07 AM
Acutally, it does to me.
You've yet to support your point.
Posted by: gwangung | May 20, 2008 11:13 AM
Much as I feel for the family, and certainly hope thier son makes a recovery (some do) and that he goes on have a fully forfilled life, would it be just too cybical to wonder if this suit has more to do wirh getting the money to support the kid for the rest of his life, rather than making it safer for anyone else? :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 11:13 AM
I coach in Little League and select baseball (travelling teams) all players user their own bats. The league does not provide the bats. It is upto the player to choose a bat. Little league pitches from about 45 feet so wooden or aluminum would make little difference. Finishing the pitch so that your throwing shoulder is facing the batter and decreasing the area that can be hit is the best way to reduce the possiblity of injury.
Posted by: Baseball Coach | May 20, 2008 11:14 AM
Why aren't the parents suing the cops who didn't know how to give CPR, the kid who propelled the missile into thier son's sternum, and, most importantly the person who set off this (clearly) forseeable train of events, their son, and his lousy pitching technique. (Even I know how to pitch having see countless cartoons, docos, and even played some games at school - I'm hardly American. Isn't baseball the American game?) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 11:25 AM
mph wrote:
Except that it is. The game requires that batters be able to hit the ball with enough velocity that they can reach base safely a reasonable fraction of the time. Unless you propose to change the game dramatically, that risk will never disappear.
Also, I believe that heart stoppage from a blow to the chest is not so much about the force of the impact, as the timing. That is, the blow must be precisely timed relative to the electrical impulse that initiates a heartbeat. Given that timing, I believe the required force is relatively low. Thus, if my recollection is correct, using wooden bats wouldn't reduce the risk of that sort of heart stoppage, except insofar as they reduce the batter's ability to hit it with sufficient velocity to even reach the pitcher.
Regarding incidence of such injuries, I found this very interesting study on the topic (Mueller et al., 2001, The Physician and Sportsmedicine, v29, #7. These authors argue that the ball itself should possibly be modified to reduce injuries. However, regarding cardiac injuries, they state:
Posted by: qetzal | May 20, 2008 11:33 AM
quetzal, I'm not sure what you're saying in your first point. Obviously the game can be played with wooden bats, and still have a good competitive balance. It was played that way for many years, and still is in some leagues. (Also, a higher batted-ball speed clearly favors the batter where home runs are concerned, but it's a mixed bag in the infield. If your infielders are quick, they can get more runners out the faster the ball gets to them. Think of Ozzie Smith on Astroturf.)
On your second point, as I mentioned previously, the injury concern has more to do with the pitcher's reaction time than the severity of the impact.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM
"Forty upto 1998". What since baseball was invented? Thats a pretty low risk. 4 people are taken by sharks in Australia every year. Maybe we should sue sharks for having pointy teeth. :)
Anyway how could the pitcher be facing the batter when the ball hits the pitcher? The pitcher must have raised his elbow, pulled back his forarm, then thrown the ball (not pitched) by rotating his upper arm. Would such a throw with a baseball even go 45 feet before hitting the ground? - Defering to your superior knowledge DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 11:45 AM
I think it's quite clear.
It's you who are not making your point very understandably. You're using qualitative arguments in a discussion that pretty much require quantitative evidence.
And, um....Still no figures on number persons per hundred thousand killed by being struck on the sternum by a baseball from an aluminium bat.
Posted by: gwangung | May 20, 2008 11:55 AM
If the kid can pitch at 45mph (3/8 of a professional) that's 66 feet per second. If the batter doubles the speed of the ball that's 132 feet per second.
Pitching at 45 feet it would take 0.681818 seconds to reach the batter, he strikes it, and it takes 0.340909 seconds to hit the pitcher. That means it takes 1.0227271 seconds in total. Fast visual processing takes in the order of miliseconds to process.
a) why did he straighten up?
b) Why didn't he flinch away from the ball? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 11:56 AM
While I also believe that risk is inherent in physical activities and that children should be taught about these risks and how to manage them as a key to growing up (so that they can take that skill to other areas of their lives that are less supervised), I'm getting a little disturbed here with the people blaming the child.
He is a kid. Maybe he totally bootched that pitch and was angled the wrong way (an impact could happen at an angle as well as dead-on), maybe he did flinch but the wrong way*, maybe he turned to see if someone he was worried about was stealing third... who knows, but I think it's in poor taste to discuss this child's culpability in his accident just because his parents are acting out trying to hurt whoever they can.
*I know adults who consistently turn the wheel the wrong way when being trained to steer out of a skid. They know what they should do, but do the opposite. I know many many people who understand what they should do and still manage to instinctively react and do exactly the wrong thing nine times out of ten.
Posted by: kodiak | May 20, 2008 12:15 PM
I'm sorry if you got the impression I was blaming the child, kodiak, I wasn't intenting that.
I simply want to underatand HOW the accident occurred. I know no death occured (at least not a permenant one) but surely something like a coronial inquest should be held. If nothing else to prevent it happening to someone else (it has already happened 4 times before after all). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 12:28 PM
mph's argument is a reasonable one, but it is completely irrelevant to any statement I made in my post. Even if he is right (and he may well be), how does that justify suing Little League when he was playing in a game sponsored by the Police Athletic League? Even if he is right, how does that justify suing the place that sold the bat or the manufacturer of the bat? And where does personal responsibility come in here on the part of the parents? They could choose not to allow their son to play in a league that uses aluminum bats. The fact is that we all take risks like this every day, especially if you play sports. A certain percentage of kids who play sports get hurt. A smaller percentage of them get hurt seriously. Every parent knows this. Heck, every kid likely knows this. We do it despite the risk.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 12:31 PM
gwangung, Ed posted this blog entry with the specific conclusion that the lawsuit is "clearly frivolous". If you're going to demand quantitative analysis, it should be from him--he's the one deciding the case here. (And I did provide links to quantitative measures of aluminum bat performance.)
I also granted, in my first response, that the parents are probably suing parties that they shouldn't, probably because those parties have bigger pockets.
But if they were to sue the league that allowed aluminum bats to be used, I think there are legitimate questions that can be raised at trial. How did the league decide to allow aluminum bats? What due diligence did they perform in terms of assessing the safety of the bats (there's probably evidence supporting both sides, but how did they weigh them)? Does the league have rules limiting the performance of aluminum bats? In the incident we're talking about, did the actual bat used exceed the capabilities of a wooden bat? If so, was the ball well-hit enough to realize those capabilities?
To call a lawsuit frivolous, you should be damned sure of the answers to these questions, and I haven't seen evidence that Ed had considered them.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 12:33 PM
Not to imply this particular case has any merit, but suing someone after losing your son in a freak accident is hardly something I'd describe as "easy money." Leaving aside the heartlessness of the sentiment, comments like these are made by those who have no idea how hard it is to try, win, and collect on even the most obviously meritorious lawsuit.
Remember, too, that anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything just by paying the filing fee. That doesn't mean the plaintiff actually succeeds in getting any money. Stories like this about ridiculous-sounding cases don't just appear in the news by accident. They are pushed into the media by "tort reform" groups and PR firms funded by companies seeking to escape liability for their own malfeasance. So the public hears about the ridiculous case being filed, or the outrageous verdict. They never, ever hear about the dismissal on summary judgment, or the reduction of the verdict by remittitur, or the reversal on appeal.
Posted by: Kenneth Fair | May 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Ed, our posts overlapped, so I want to make it clear that I'm largely in agreement with you over the issue of whom the parents are suing.
I wonder if the police league follows rules published by the Little League (allowing aluminum bats), and that's the basis for the lawsuit. I would still say that the police league should incur the responsibility that arises from their choice of rules.
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
Little League, the store, and the manufacturer should join together to sue the kid's estate for malfeasance of office, and go for punitive damages.
The pitcher is part of the battery and is not an infielder or outfielder. A ball hit toward center field is for the fielders to catch, not the pitcher. By failing to get out of the way of the ball, he should have been charged with an error.
Posted by: Bill the Cat | May 20, 2008 12:49 PM
My point is that in order to play baseball, one must be able to hit the ball with some minimum velocity. That's part of the game, and as long as it is, pitchers will occasionally be struck by batted balls.
Sure, wooden bats still allow a competitive game, because they still allow the batter to hit the ball hard enough.
On average, what do you think is the velocity difference for a ball batted by a 12-year-old using a wooden bat, versus an aluminum one? What does that translate to in terms of a 12-year-old pitcher's reaction time? How much will that decrease the likelihood of an injury like this one?
A study by Nicholls et al. (Med Sci Sport Exercise, 2005, v37, pp30-38) found that a metal bat propelled a baseball to the pitcher's mound in about 0.3s, compared to about 0.35s for a wooden bat (exact results depended on which of two baseballs they used). They also noted that the minimum reaction time for a pitcher to complete a "protective action" to avoid a ball is estimated to be 0.4 s.
I don't see any compelling evidence that using wooden bats would have significantly reduced the likelihood of this boy's injury.
On the other hand, there seems to be decent evidence that using softer baseballs could have a big effect. Link et al. (Pediatrics 2002, v109, pp873-877) found that safety baseballs substantially reduced commotio cordis in a pig model (69% occurrence of cc using std baseballs fired at 40 mph at the animal during the vulnerable period of the heart beat, compared to 11-22% with safety balls).
If there's any significant fault here, it's on the Police Atheltic League for not using safety balls and for (apparently) not having an auto defibrillator and/or someone trained in CPR available. But I'm guessing the league doesn't have the kind of money these folks hope to get, to provide care for their son. The bat manufacturer and Little League Inc. do.
I feel very sorry for this family. But if the facts are as reported (and I recognize they may not be), I completely agree this is a frivolous lawsuit intended to squeeze money out of groups that are not at fault.
Posted by: qetzal | May 20, 2008 12:51 PM
I'm with Kenneth Fair here - the time to get outraged would be after this case survives summary disposition - which it probably will not. Of course, once this case is summarily dismissed, it will be forgotten - except when it is time to trot out more "tort reform" nonsense - it will be cited as an example of the need for reform even though the case, by being dismissed, would prove that the system worked just fine already.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | May 20, 2008 12:51 PM
A baseball umpire reported above that the players bring the bats, they are not supplied by the League.
The batter (presumeably) owns the bat, sue the batter. The pitcher could have refused to pitch, but he didn't, sue the pitcher, the umpire controls the game, sue the umpire, and so on and so on.
It was a terrible accident, but how about trying to prevent this happening again, rather than suing all and sundry? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 1:00 PM
DingoJack, Thanks for the clarification, it wasn't just your comment, there were a few others that seemed to be tending the same direction that had me seeing red on that point... mea culpa for reading more than you meant into what you said.
I can understand the very human desire to make sense out of a senseless tragedy... I just don't think that we're going to get that information this time. It was a freak occurrance, and a tragedy. As noted by someone above, we do know why it occurs, but making sure there's never a "when", well, I think that starts into putting kids in plastic bubble territory (it can happen from any kind of blow to the sternum, being punched, falling out of a tree, being hit by balls or pucks, running into anything at the right height...) and that's just not feasible.
I think the parents are acting out of greif, but I don't think that should enable them to sue everyone in sight (though if, as someone pointed out, there were police officers at the game and they failed to perform CPR, I think you could make a case... all the police I know are required to hold certification.... heck, all the lifeguards I know are required to hold certification).
Posted by: kodiak | May 20, 2008 1:04 PM
No, that's your job as well.
And, I'm sorry, but you're throwing all these figures and studies out and it seems that you really don't understand them.
3.85 mph? By COLLEGE students? I don't consider that much of a support for your position.
You yourself have flatly stated that aluminum bats are less safe than wooden bats, but that's clearly not a warranted conclusion to make with respect to the serious injuries we're talking about here, based on your cited studies.
Posted by: gwangung | May 20, 2008 1:19 PM
It is not at all clear to me that the choice of bats would have any effect on whether it could happen again (and that's my main point of argument).
Posted by: gwangung | May 20, 2008 1:25 PM
Gwangung - I really meant couldn't coaches show how to pitch the ball properly so the right (or left) shoulder points at the pitcher and the pitcher should hold that final position for at least 2 seconds. That would minise the risk of detting thumped in the chest. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 1:30 PM
I'm sorry I'll try that again.
The last sentence should read:
"minimise the risk of getting thumped in the chest." -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 1:36 PM
Those are good questions, and they're questions that could be addressed at trial, preferably with the same model of bat used during the incident in question. The results may very well indicate that there's no meaningful difference in this case.
I'm a little unsure how to interpret those results, and I don't have access to the journal. If a ball is hit less perfectly, or by a weaker batter, could we see 0.40 vs. 0.45 seconds for the different bats? Are there cases where an "incomplete" protective action is enough (i.e., where less motion is required than what the researchers measured, and might take less than 0.40 seconds)? My intuition is that we sometimes see pitchers cleanly field comeback line drives, and avoiding an impact should be similar feat. So while aluminum and wood might both be fatal in some cases, there might be other cases where one is avoidable and the other is not. It's the whole distribution curve of exit speeds from one bat vs. the other that determines the overall safety (unavoidable balls per zillion innings as hit by real players). Does the paper discuss such factors?
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 1:42 PM
gwangung, does 3 mph make a difference in how easily a batter can hit a fastball? Why wouldn't it make a difference in how easily a pitcher can react?
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 1:43 PM
I don't have any data, but I estimated a time from pitch to pitcher's chest of around 1 second at 45mph (66 ft/sec). Plenty of time to react (rection time 0.4 sec). See post at 11:56pm. I know that means nothing, but it's a ballpark figure (no pun intented) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 1:54 PM
I would say that mph has the most reasonable arguments here, and, contrary to what Ed asserts, they are relevant to his statements. While I would guess that the case has very little chance of success, there is not enough information in the article (nor in Ed's post, nor even in the comments) to conclude that the lawsuit is "clearly frivolous". The fact that there is a discussion here, with not-completely-stupid arguments on both sides, strongly suggests that it is not clear at all whether the case is frivolous or not. And the attorney's explanation why they are suing Little League is not facially unreasonable, so it doesn't even look like the case can be dismissed without some fact finding. None of what I am saying excludes the possibility that it is a bad faith suit brought on by a lawyer who knows well (or should know) that the facts will not support the claim; that seems the most likely outcome to me; but if so, that is a fact to be determined.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 20, 2008 1:55 PM
I should add that I agree with Ed philosophically - if an accident happen, it doesn't necessarily mean someone's to blame. (As I understand, mph agrees with that general statement as well.) It also doesn't necessarily mean somebody is liable, but that's already a much lower threshold. Liability laws should be (and are to some extent) based on economic reasoning, and moral blame is not logically necessary for liability. Where I think Ed goes wrong is in jumping to the conclusion that this particular case "clearly" is one of accident without liability.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 20, 2008 2:07 PM
Ed: "... how does that justify suing the place that sold the bat or the manufacturer of the bat? "
This is standard product liability law: those are *precisely* the defendants in a product liability case.
As for why suing the Little League, the newspaper article you linked to clearly gave the reason: Little League certified the bat as safe for children. While I think the suit will fail, suing the Little League is completely rational given their theory of liability. In fact, depending on how the facts turn out, it is theoretically possible for the store and mfg to escape liability, but not the Little League.
Posted by: Divalent | May 20, 2008 2:08 PM
You are more likely to die in an aircradt crash than being hit on the sternum by a base ball. Is the airline industry considered "unsafe"?
How likely is this accident? How foreseeable was it? Could any reasonable person predict such an accident might occur?
You might die while looking up at a bird, while wearing a tie (preventing you from swallowing) by choking on a pea shot from a peashotter 150 feet away behind a wall. Could the person firing the pea, resonably expect that outcome? Could the owners of property reasonably expect this accident to occur?
I think it is a frivolous law suit because it was clearly an accidental death that noone could predict. It is an occurence that occurs so infrequently that it could be qualified as a "freak" accident (an act of god, if you will). Apologies for my rambling post. I'm tired.
And so to bed -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 2:26 PM
One thing that has not been considered in aluminum vs wood bats is how they perform relative to where they contact the ball. IIRC from when I taught biomechanics 15 years ago, I looked specifically into the physical characteristics of the types of bats. Metal bats were found to have a larger "sweet spot", where the ball would rebound with a velocity above some arbitrary speed. Wooden bats had a smaller "sweet spot", however, if the ball was struck at the center of that area, it rebounded at a higher velocity than any part of the sweet spot on an aluminum bat. The difference was attributed to the different in resonance during contact.
As to the pitching motion, pitchers are taught to assume a defensive position as quickly as possible after release. Some do it a lot better than others. This entails moving into a position facing home plate, so the natural inclination of many pitchers is to expose progressively a greater and greater area of the chest to a batted ball during the time that a ball could be hit directly back to the pitcher - normally a good thing for defensive fielding, but a bad thing if the ball is hit back towards the sternum. During this time the pitcher would not have had time to defend himself effectively against a hard-hit ball.
Something that might have contributed to the brain damage is the way that CPR was performed [if it was]. The method with 5 chest compressions and one breath in 5 seconds has been found to be significantly less effective that simply doing chest compressions at a faster rate - ~100/minute [see JAMA Apr 8,2007 p. 1646].
For those doing any calculations, the pitcher's rubber is 48 feet from the front of home plate to the pitcher's rubber, wo a pitcher will be at the front of the mound ~43-44 feet away from home after delivery.
Posted by: natural cynic | May 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Dingo,
The U.S. is the most litigious country on earth. In many cases people see it as easy money (there's no real injury, but someone did something wrong, so let's see what we can get out of it), and in many other cases--as this one--there's a desparate unwillingness to accept that sometimes bad things happen and nobody's at fault. The way we Americans see it, somebody has to be at fault or this bad thing never would have happened, and whomever it is deserves to be punished, so let's sue everyone remotely connected to the incident until we figure out who's to blame and they get punished.
It's not one of our finer qualities (but it does beat invading countries for fun and profit).
Posted by: James Hanley | May 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Okay, Little League states that in their studies, wooden bats and metal bats result in a similar injury rate.
Furthermore, Little League states: "More than 10 years ago, the major manufacturers of non-wood bats reached an agreement with Little League to limit their bats to a "Bat Performance Factor" (BPF) of 1.15. ... The BPF is essentially a measure of a non-wood bat's performance (how fast the ball exits the bat when hit) in relation to a standard wood bat's rating of 1.00. A very good wood bat's BPF is 1.15.
"That means today's best non-wood bats (usually made of aluminum) used in Little League perform statistically the same, in terms of how fast the ball exits the bat, as the best wood bats."
So metal bat is not relevant to the injury, and Little League has performed due diligence on this matter.
Posted by: Paige | May 20, 2008 3:57 PM
I was smart - I always got a stomach-ache before gym class. (Sports, bleh.)
Didn't this woman have to sign a permission form for her kid to play at all? How does she justify this? What was the bat supposed to be made out of - butter? Nerf balls? How absurd. By this woman's logic the defendants could countersue by being unexpectedly "hit" by her ridiculous lawsuit.
When, oh when, will we have tort reform in the U.S.?
Posted by: Kristine | May 20, 2008 4:07 PM
And I have no issue with the defense presenting that argument in court, but why should the methodology of the study be immune from review in court?
Consider the following hypothetical: A laboratory test shows that for every 100 batted balls that a wood bat hits to the pitcher in 0.40 seconds or less, the aluminum bat hits 110. Because baseball deaths are thankfully rare, the actual death statistics cannot distinguish the death rate at a statistically significant level. At the same time, the just outcome might be that the defendant is 10% liable.
Again, that's great, and is an appropriate defense at trial. At the same time, it is reasonable for the plaintiff to challenge the defendant to show that the BPF is a well-designed and meaningful standard, that the bat used conformed to the BPF (no lab screw-ups or fraud), and that sample variation is insignificant (or that each bat is tested). (I had addressed this obliquely in a previous post, where I listed such questions the defense could raise.)
The fact that the Little League has instituted these measures is evidence that there is some legitimate concern about the design of the bats. They are probably in a good position to show that they addressed those concerns. But at the same time, the fact that they responded to such concerns is evidence that the parents' case is not outright absurd or frivolous. (To put it another way, I have no doubt that the league instituted these measures because they expected to be sued, or expected the bats to be banned, and they wanted to be prepared. They wouldn't put so much effort into it if a quick pre-trial dismissal could be expected.)
Posted by: mph | May 20, 2008 5:34 PM
So what? That implies that the risks associated with wooden bats are the upper limit of what's acceptable. How was that decided? We could do a different test and show that for every 100 batted balls that a wood bat hits to the pitcher in 0.40 seconds or less, an inflatable plastic bat hits 0. Isn't it therefore legitimate to sue over wooden bats as well?
I do agree that Little League has surely considered the chance of being sued. I also suspect you're right that this won't be summarily dismissed. I don't agree that means this suit is reasonable. It means that our legal system errs in favor of allowing unreasonable suits, and organizations like Little League are forced to plan accordingly. (If you want to argue that allowing suits like this is necessary to maximize fairness overall, that's a different matter.)
Posted by: qetzal | May 20, 2008 6:22 PM
I blame gravity. The ball did not travel on a flat trajectory when it left the bat and would probably have hit the pitcher on the shoulder, or passed over it, if there had been no gravity. Newtonists have a lot to answer for.
Posted by: grasshopper | May 20, 2008 6:26 PM
Instead of suing, shouldn't this incident inspire people to (1) develop protective gear for the chest and abdomen region that does not impede pitching performance and (2) build a campaign to require baseball leagues to use said device?
Tragedy ought to inspire prevention planning and finding faults in a design, not playing the blame game while ignoring the real problems and devastation.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | May 20, 2008 6:51 PM
I wonder if the sue-happy nature of the US is in part because of the US health care system. The boy is disabled, not dead; what support will he have through life to meet the extra costs that imposes? Who picks up his medical bills?
Posted by: Cath | May 20, 2008 8:58 PM
IMHO this ties into people's desire for certainty and the driving force for religion and why they don't like evolution.
Religion says there is a design and a designer. There is, according to this, order and certainty. Every little thing means something. Things don't just happen.
And when something happens it is either good, automatically assumed to be a gift from God, or bad, assumed to be either a deserved punishment from God or the work of the devil. In this light if anyone has anything to do with something bad it is in part their fault. They have either brought down God's wrath or they are a tools of the devil. Throughout this God is never blamed because he/she/it is assumed to be all good and, well, you can't blame God.
But never mind. What follows after the assuming that there is certainty because a supernatural guy in the clouds is in charge doesn't have to make sense. The religionists can sleep easy and feel the warm glow of certainty.
Of course the need for certainty runs counter to evolution. Which is one of the reasons they object so loudly. The same logic, or lack of logic, that says evolution is wrong, that a supernatural being is in charge is the same logic that says that if a kid gets hurt in a baseball game it is entirely just to sue the pants off of anyone who has anything to do with it.
The need for certainty, the fear of randomness, leads to an assertion that randomness doesn't exist. So when a random accident happens it, therefore, can't be seen as random. Someone is to blame and someone must pay.
Posted by: Art | May 21, 2008 1:19 AM
James Hanley - Didn't we work out that America has conducted an invasion/police action/coup/intervention once every 14 months on average over the past 200 or so years?
If baseball is "unsafe" with apprximately 1 death like this every 38 years (or so), then shouldn't we ban driving, flying, travelling by train & etc. they have much higher fatality rates? -DJ
PS I still don't get how you can get hit in the chest by a ball when your shoulder is pointing at the batter, nor why, with (my very rough) calculation of one second from pitch to pitcher and a reaction time of 400ms the kid couldn't protect himself. I've never heard of a similar injury in criket and the ball is much harder than a baseball.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 21, 2008 2:18 AM
I am very impressed with the scholarship of DJ and mph. Will it make the family's case strong? Sorta doubt it.
Is an aluminum bat safe when used as designed? Yes.
How about a wood bat? Yes.
The baseball? Yes.
Cleats? Yes.
The game itself? No.
The game of baseball is not safe, when played properly. There is no way to make this sport safe by any definition of the word without changing the game.
Do people who play, even understand the game think it is safe? I can't believe that there are any such people.
Is the lawsuit frivolous? Given the above humble observations, yes.
Not a doubt in my mind.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | May 21, 2008 2:40 AM
Postscript to my last:
Can the family win?
In this day and age, and in this country...yes.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | May 21, 2008 2:43 AM
So many people, so few passing grades in tort law.
Is an aluminum bat safe when used as designed? Yes.
Is that the right question? No.
Learned Hand said that liability for tort should be assessed when the burden (B) of preventing injury exceeds the probability (p) of harm multiplied by the degree of loss (L). B
Could the bat manufacturers have made the bats SAFER for a per unit cost less than the expected loss?
That's the right question.
The case is clearly not frivolous against the bat manufacturers. Duh! Frivolous means there's no way you could make a case.
Against Little League? Did anyone here read the complaint? Me neither. I can, however, think of a number of possible theories of liability. Did LL set standards for the industry that this league adopted? Did LL encourage the bat manufacturers to make a bat that could have been safer? Someone above said that LL set a standard for the bats - that suggests they had a hand in the design and manufacture of the bat.
And products liability imposes strict liability on all levels of commerce, the manufacturer and the shipper and merchant. It works on the theory that the seller could have said to the manufacturer, "You should make this bat safer." Have a problem with it? Take it up with Prosser, this ship has sailed - strict liability is a decades-old theory.
And those of you who say, "Well, baseball's dangerous," we don't assume unreasonable risks. No one would agree to play baseball if one of every 4 baseballs exploded, killing the batter and catcher. That's an unreasonable risk. (And we wouldn't play with sharks or bullets either, so comparisons to those are inapt!) The question, and one you can't prove or disprove by simply looking at the complaint, is whether aluminum bats make baseball unreasonably unsafe. (And look back at Learned Hand's formula - unreasonable is when B
Posted by: Greg | May 21, 2008 8:05 AM
Postscript - apparently, you can't use a less-than sign in the text. Whenever you see a B that ends the sentence, assume that what follows is the mathematical equivalent of "is less than p multiplied by L."
Posted by: Greg | May 21, 2008 8:07 AM
The parent's could be counter-sued. In addition to bats, balls and gloves, Sports Authority and other sports equipment retailers all sell a $20 chest shield, worn under a uniform, that has been created to avoid this exact type of injury.
Since the parent's chose to NOT buy this equipment for their son, they are clearly negligent.
BTW - In my son's league, ONLY wood, or -3 and -5 weight aluminum bats are allowed to also help avoid batted ball injuries. The bat in this instance was a -12.
I also recommend that ALL pitchers be required to wear a face protector, which will help limit batted balls to the face, which is another dangerous, and all too common occurrence.
Posted by: J-Dog | May 21, 2008 8:51 AM
Strict liability as a legal theory implies that consumers need to be protected from themselves, as opposed to the traditional rules of liability which tried to discern who was at fault--who actually caused the harm. Learned Hand's formula (a highly debatable legal innovation, although it appeals to my inner economist) was an attempt to formalize the determination of fault. Unfortunately it inadvertantly led away from the determination of fault by focusing on whether the party sued could have done something--anything--to prevent someone from getting harmed. Then it's just a simple matter of applying the formula--except juries (and judges, for that matter) never know the input values to the formula: What is the probability of this kind of injury? What would it have cost to prevent? Formulas are useless without meaningful numbers.
So what we get is a legal system that has drifted toward strict liability because it's a hell of a lot easier to apply, and it suits juries because they get to smack down big business, and instead of a justice system it becomes a lottery system, where people harmed by their own actions have a chance at winning the big jackpot. Or, as Roy Grutman and Bill Thomas call it, "the big casino." (in Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process.)
Sorry, Greg. While you're right on the facts, I think it's imperative to keep criticizing these types of cases, and the current structure of tort law itself. Learned Hand wanted to make law more efficient, but encouraging people to engage in shotgun lawsuits for each and every harm they suffer is extremely inefficient, not what Hand had in mind at all.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 21, 2008 9:13 AM
"apparently, you can't use a less-than sign in the text"
You have to use an escape code, in this case:
& lt or & gt
without the spaces (ie, the ampersand, the "l" or "g", and the "t" are contiguous). Thus:
B ampersandlt Lp
(replacing, of course, the bold word with the symbol) will post as:
B < Lp
Caution: when you preview, the processor will substitute a less-than for the escape, so you have to change it back to the escape before posting. I'm sure there's a way around this, but I don't know what it is.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | May 21, 2008 10:24 AM
Cath has it right: this family is up against the wall of some extreme medical expenses, with no help in sight.
The technical term for this lawsuit may be "frivolous", but the actual motivation would better be described as "desperation".
A rarely mentioned advantage of universal-coverage single-payer health care reform would be an immediate reduction in this sort of litigation.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 21, 2008 1:00 PM
I'm with Cath and Pierce on this one. For example, the infamous McDonald's coffee case could never have happened in a country with universal health care (all the plaintiff originally asked for was $30K for medical bills).
Posted by: ebohlman | May 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Art:
"IMHO this ties into people's desire for certainty and the driving force for religion and why they don't like evolution."
I'm sure pretty much all frivolous lawsuits can be traced to religious determinism... or at least the ones stemming from aluminum bats vs. the more traditional wooden bats.
Posted by: Rich | May 22, 2008 2:04 AM