The PARENTS put the child in harms way. You are at baseball park and you don’t believe there is danger of errant fly balls? These people are just stupid and so is the judge. The courts are going completely overboard in finding a remedy for any wrong. The Little League just settled a case out of court for 175k for injuries a kid suffered when sliding into second base. The claim was insufficent coaching, ubnsafe bases, blah,blah,blah. They settled as they feared a jury verdict might be much worse. If this stupidity keeps up, little league, pop warner football etc. will cease to exist.
so where were the parents during the incident? are they not responsible for some protection? afterall, this child is 4 yrs old. was the child placed in the seat in-front of the parents or nearest to the batter? if you are a responsible parent, you’d have had your hand/body moving for protection. afterall, are we not trying to catch the ball for a souvenoir?
I see the future of ball games. All stadiums will have netting all across the board, no one in the stands will be able to catch a ball at all. Either that, or before you can purchase your ticket, you will have to sign a waiver stating you will not sue if you are injured.
The Court did not rule that the stadium, team, or player were negligent or that the boy’s family should be awarded damages. It ruled that the “baseball immunity” that prevented the family from suing was invalid. It’s still possible that the family sues and the jury finds that the parents were more at fault than the player/stadium/team. It just means that these defendents have to defend themselves from this (and other) suits.
Great,that makes it better. Now the player, stadium, and team have to defend themselves. Oh joy!! New Mexico is a pure comparative state. I’m sure there will be enough negligence for everyone to have some.
So this little boy was in a picnic area set up by the statium in an area without nets? Sounds like a good decision – let a jury decide.
“Chad Kuhn, who played five seasons of professional baseball and who
claimed to be “familiar with and [to] have personal and professional knowledge of
standard stadium safety practices.” Kuhn opined that the picnic area at Isotopes
stadium “failed to utilize proper safety standards” by arranging the picnic tables so that the patrons were not facing the field, by failing to screen the area with
protective netting, and by failing to warn patrons that balls might enter the area.”
ANOTHER OPEN DOOR FOR ATTORNEY’S AND FEE AND INCARESE CONGESTON IN THE COURTS INCREASE IN PREMIUMS ETC ETC ETCSubject: RE: RE: Oh Brother
Posted On: August 19, 2009, 12:27 pm CDT
Posted By: stan the man
Comment:
The Court did not rule that the stadium, team, or player were negligent or that the boy’s family should be awarded damages. It ruled that the “baseball immunity” that prevented the family from suing was invalid. It’s still possible that the family sues and the jury finds that the parents were more at fault than the player/stadium/team. It just means that these defendents have to defend themselves from this (and other) suits.
some of the commenters failed to take note of the fact that the boy wasn’t even in the stands when he was hit, but was in the ball park’s picnic area. how would you react to finding out your 4-year-old got a fractured skull while enjoying his picnic lunch at a baseball game? by the way, the summary of the case also makes no mention of the boy’s parents being present. and regardless of who was with him, how could anyone have seen a ball coming into the picnic area while you’re not even in the stands watching the homerun batting practice that caused it? the court was right in doing away with the baseball rule across-the-board because in some cases, maybe this one, the ballpark et al should be liable.
first of all, where was the picnic area? most of them are located in the outfield. so you would have time and many folks would be jumping up and down to get this ball. there has to be another underlying issue here. even if he was in the picnic area, where was the parents or responsible guardian? they are in fact responsible for the safety of their own kids. i think this will blowup and take more time in the courts. afterall, we know that in baseball, those balls love to leave the park under the good circumstances. there was no intentional hitting this kid, because what was the chance of hitting him versus anyone else? this is frivilous and the judge should be tossed off the bench!
has the judge been to a game of ball? don’t you think he might like to get a ball if it was hit out?
Of course nobody intentially hit the poor kid with the ball. We are talking about negligence and what immunity the ball park may try to cling to. You should be able to eat a hot dog without having to look up for fly balls. Move the picnic area or put up a friggen net. How hard is that? Now that the “baseball immunity” is not available, let’s see who is deemed negligent. If it was my park, I would have put the picnic area somewhere else or put up a net. They probably should not have named the batter in he suit. A 4 year old was severely injured. This is not a frivilous suit.
Bull, it is frivilous. There is a risk inherent in anything that we do. If you go to the ball game you might get hit with a ball. It is impossible to protect everyone from everything. I feel terrible for the parents and the kid but can you say accident?
Call it whatever you want to call it. It is dumb to put a picnic area (without even a net) where fly balls land.
It’s not that hard. 4 year old kids getting severely injured is a whole different ballgame (no pun intended) when it could have been avoided.
Dumb = negligent in my book.
Well sports fans, that ball is hit high and deep into the pocketbooks of the owners of the Isotopes. Back up the moving van, its Tucson or bust for this minor league team. Tucson has two stadiums and pretty soon, no teams, so they have some availability and apparently more business friendly courts.
Arizona would like to extend their thanks to the New Mexico courts for the coming uptick in tourism.
They tried to sue the player for hitting a home run? Are you freaking kidding me. Wow…..that honestly angers me. I’d like to smack the parents upside the head for being so shallow as to even consider this suit. You failed to keep your child safe. PERIOD! The blame is solely on the parents! Sueing the player…..wow….i’m almost at a loss for words……almost.
When you go to a ball game, there is an amount of risk you assume as a patron. To me, if you decide to sit in an area that is not netted, you are assuming the risk of gettin ghit with a ball. Yes, I fell horrible for the 4 year old, but I truly think this suit should be thrown out. The procecuting attonrey is going to be using the sympathy card, and because of it, they will win the case. What I find funny, is that in civil cases, you will very rarely see an insurance agent in the jury, because most agents use their HEADS when determining if something should be paid out, they will not let their emotions get in the way, and procecuting attornies know this, so they turn us down as soon as they see our occupation. I had a jury summons four months ago, but I didn’t even have to go to the hearing because of my occupation. But then again, most agents are smart enough to get out of jury duty in the first place, though I would like to serve in one at least once in my life, just for the experiance.
well, here’s probably the other issue that will probably be played. remember that in hockey they had to place netting up after the hockey puck hit a girl. now, if you notice at most rinks, the netting is basically around the backside of the nets and usually up to the blue line. but pucks still fly out. in baseball, they did put netting and fencing up behind home plate. this is ridiculous, because you know as an individual a game of baseball, it could be the bat, the ball or anything for that matter could leave the park. good thing in most cases the ballpark has medical staff onsite to help in emergency. i think it’s a matter of this society does not want to take risk anymore and if anything happens, someone w/deeeeeep pockets will take care of everything.
“….Under our present tort system, we discern no public policy reason to justify bestowing immunity on the business of baseball,” Fry concluded. Yes, this is about the present tort system crafted by plaintiff’s attorney to find the pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow. It does not surprise me that a jurist, an attorney, would rule in favor of increasing the size and scope of what types of torts can be litigated. Me thinks that the smell of money from the deep pockets noted by wudchuck are the real reasons for this ruling. Whatever happened to the principle of “stare decisis”? Sue a couple of big league ball teams and their owners and baseball will fold up; one can only hope that this ruling is appealled to federal courts and SCOTUS. Shame on the New Mexico Justices!
in not reading their ticket… signs at the ballpark… taking their 4 year old to a “dangerous sport”
The statement in the suit is rediculous – Matranga’s (the batter) conduct “was wanton and showed an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs … “Ignored his duty to exercise ordinary care as he the ball into the occupied picnic area”…
Who in the $&@#( thinks the batter aimed at the picnic area? Or the kid for that matter
If these people were that stupid to think that a baseball park is without risk should assume more than 51% of the risk since they made the “concious” decision to attend the game in the first place – What… They don’t watch TV? Don’t hear the announcers say over and over and over again they cannot stress enough to be aware of flying objects – no matter where they are seated –
Stay home and watch the tube if you want to be protected from life…
Bye-Bye Baseball is right – or hello higher ticket prices to pay for the insurance that they won’t be able to afford as a result of the ruling
I hope the Superior reverses on appeal from the District – Judge Richard J. Knowles needs to get out more often…
And a JURY should decide an award? I’m sure they’ll sit back there in their little room and come up with a real fair price… like 10million or some rediculious number –
I personally think that the ball park has performed their duty of care — written and verbal warnings, and physical protection (nets) over the most dangerous areas — around home plate.
This standard of care was established back in the 1930’s or so when… someone sued a baseball team after being struck by a batted ball.
The judge in that case recognized that a baseball team has to balance the safety aspect with the fact that the spectators don’t want to watch the game through a friggin’ net.
For the location of the “picnic area,” these are relatively commonplace in minor league ball parks. Home run territory is the SAFEST place in the park to put them. a ball will land there maybe once every couple of games.
I don’t think the suit has a whole lot of merit. It’s an unfortunate accident, but baseball is inherently somewhat dangerous to watch.
I could see a poorly designed baseball field leaving the ballpark to lawsuits. Usually you’ll see that the food stands are pretty guarded from the ball. The ballpark knows you’ll have your back to the field and you could get hit. Other areas have high walls by the vendors. This isn’t coincidence. It’s planned out.
You shouldn’t put a picnic area where people will be sitting and eating in an area where flyballs could reasonably land. You wouldn’t put a food stand behind home plate without nets to protect the people because it would be unreasonably dangerous. It should be for the jury to decide whether this ballpark is designed unsafely.
Now suing the player, that’s a steaming pile of bull.
The PARENTS put the child in harms way. You are at baseball park and you don’t believe there is danger of errant fly balls? These people are just stupid and so is the judge. The courts are going completely overboard in finding a remedy for any wrong. The Little League just settled a case out of court for 175k for injuries a kid suffered when sliding into second base. The claim was insufficent coaching, ubnsafe bases, blah,blah,blah. They settled as they feared a jury verdict might be much worse. If this stupidity keeps up, little league, pop warner football etc. will cease to exist.
so where were the parents during the incident? are they not responsible for some protection? afterall, this child is 4 yrs old. was the child placed in the seat in-front of the parents or nearest to the batter? if you are a responsible parent, you’d have had your hand/body moving for protection. afterall, are we not trying to catch the ball for a souvenoir?
I see the future of ball games. All stadiums will have netting all across the board, no one in the stands will be able to catch a ball at all. Either that, or before you can purchase your ticket, you will have to sign a waiver stating you will not sue if you are injured.
The Court did not rule that the stadium, team, or player were negligent or that the boy’s family should be awarded damages. It ruled that the “baseball immunity” that prevented the family from suing was invalid. It’s still possible that the family sues and the jury finds that the parents were more at fault than the player/stadium/team. It just means that these defendents have to defend themselves from this (and other) suits.
And all fans have to wear a helmet with a full facemask.
or this will be like the game of jai alai…
Great,that makes it better. Now the player, stadium, and team have to defend themselves. Oh joy!! New Mexico is a pure comparative state. I’m sure there will be enough negligence for everyone to have some.
Why would they put a picnic area where the fly balls land?
So this little boy was in a picnic area set up by the statium in an area without nets? Sounds like a good decision – let a jury decide.
“Chad Kuhn, who played five seasons of professional baseball and who
claimed to be “familiar with and [to] have personal and professional knowledge of
standard stadium safety practices.” Kuhn opined that the picnic area at Isotopes
stadium “failed to utilize proper safety standards” by arranging the picnic tables so that the patrons were not facing the field, by failing to screen the area with
protective netting, and by failing to warn patrons that balls might enter the area.”
ANOTHER OPEN DOOR FOR ATTORNEY’S AND FEE AND INCARESE CONGESTON IN THE COURTS INCREASE IN PREMIUMS ETC ETC ETCSubject: RE: RE: Oh Brother
Posted On: August 19, 2009, 12:27 pm CDT
Posted By: stan the man
Comment:
The Court did not rule that the stadium, team, or player were negligent or that the boy’s family should be awarded damages. It ruled that the “baseball immunity” that prevented the family from suing was invalid. It’s still possible that the family sues and the jury finds that the parents were more at fault than the player/stadium/team. It just means that these defendents have to defend themselves from this (and other) suits.
some of the commenters failed to take note of the fact that the boy wasn’t even in the stands when he was hit, but was in the ball park’s picnic area. how would you react to finding out your 4-year-old got a fractured skull while enjoying his picnic lunch at a baseball game? by the way, the summary of the case also makes no mention of the boy’s parents being present. and regardless of who was with him, how could anyone have seen a ball coming into the picnic area while you’re not even in the stands watching the homerun batting practice that caused it? the court was right in doing away with the baseball rule across-the-board because in some cases, maybe this one, the ballpark et al should be liable.
first of all, where was the picnic area? most of them are located in the outfield. so you would have time and many folks would be jumping up and down to get this ball. there has to be another underlying issue here. even if he was in the picnic area, where was the parents or responsible guardian? they are in fact responsible for the safety of their own kids. i think this will blowup and take more time in the courts. afterall, we know that in baseball, those balls love to leave the park under the good circumstances. there was no intentional hitting this kid, because what was the chance of hitting him versus anyone else? this is frivilous and the judge should be tossed off the bench!
has the judge been to a game of ball? don’t you think he might like to get a ball if it was hit out?
Of course nobody intentially hit the poor kid with the ball. We are talking about negligence and what immunity the ball park may try to cling to. You should be able to eat a hot dog without having to look up for fly balls. Move the picnic area or put up a friggen net. How hard is that? Now that the “baseball immunity” is not available, let’s see who is deemed negligent. If it was my park, I would have put the picnic area somewhere else or put up a net. They probably should not have named the batter in he suit. A 4 year old was severely injured. This is not a frivilous suit.
Bull, it is frivilous. There is a risk inherent in anything that we do. If you go to the ball game you might get hit with a ball. It is impossible to protect everyone from everything. I feel terrible for the parents and the kid but can you say accident?
Call it whatever you want to call it. It is dumb to put a picnic area (without even a net) where fly balls land.
It’s not that hard. 4 year old kids getting severely injured is a whole different ballgame (no pun intended) when it could have been avoided.
Dumb = negligent in my book.
Well sports fans, that ball is hit high and deep into the pocketbooks of the owners of the Isotopes. Back up the moving van, its Tucson or bust for this minor league team. Tucson has two stadiums and pretty soon, no teams, so they have some availability and apparently more business friendly courts.
Arizona would like to extend their thanks to the New Mexico courts for the coming uptick in tourism.
They tried to sue the player for hitting a home run? Are you freaking kidding me. Wow…..that honestly angers me. I’d like to smack the parents upside the head for being so shallow as to even consider this suit. You failed to keep your child safe. PERIOD! The blame is solely on the parents! Sueing the player…..wow….i’m almost at a loss for words……almost.
When you go to a ball game, there is an amount of risk you assume as a patron. To me, if you decide to sit in an area that is not netted, you are assuming the risk of gettin ghit with a ball. Yes, I fell horrible for the 4 year old, but I truly think this suit should be thrown out. The procecuting attonrey is going to be using the sympathy card, and because of it, they will win the case. What I find funny, is that in civil cases, you will very rarely see an insurance agent in the jury, because most agents use their HEADS when determining if something should be paid out, they will not let their emotions get in the way, and procecuting attornies know this, so they turn us down as soon as they see our occupation. I had a jury summons four months ago, but I didn’t even have to go to the hearing because of my occupation. But then again, most agents are smart enough to get out of jury duty in the first place, though I would like to serve in one at least once in my life, just for the experiance.
well, here’s probably the other issue that will probably be played. remember that in hockey they had to place netting up after the hockey puck hit a girl. now, if you notice at most rinks, the netting is basically around the backside of the nets and usually up to the blue line. but pucks still fly out. in baseball, they did put netting and fencing up behind home plate. this is ridiculous, because you know as an individual a game of baseball, it could be the bat, the ball or anything for that matter could leave the park. good thing in most cases the ballpark has medical staff onsite to help in emergency. i think it’s a matter of this society does not want to take risk anymore and if anything happens, someone w/deeeeeep pockets will take care of everything.
“….Under our present tort system, we discern no public policy reason to justify bestowing immunity on the business of baseball,” Fry concluded. Yes, this is about the present tort system crafted by plaintiff’s attorney to find the pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow. It does not surprise me that a jurist, an attorney, would rule in favor of increasing the size and scope of what types of torts can be litigated. Me thinks that the smell of money from the deep pockets noted by wudchuck are the real reasons for this ruling. Whatever happened to the principle of “stare decisis”? Sue a couple of big league ball teams and their owners and baseball will fold up; one can only hope that this ruling is appealled to federal courts and SCOTUS. Shame on the New Mexico Justices!
in not reading their ticket… signs at the ballpark… taking their 4 year old to a “dangerous sport”
The statement in the suit is rediculous – Matranga’s (the batter) conduct “was wanton and showed an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs … “Ignored his duty to exercise ordinary care as he the ball into the occupied picnic area”…
Who in the $&@#( thinks the batter aimed at the picnic area? Or the kid for that matter
If these people were that stupid to think that a baseball park is without risk should assume more than 51% of the risk since they made the “concious” decision to attend the game in the first place – What… They don’t watch TV? Don’t hear the announcers say over and over and over again they cannot stress enough to be aware of flying objects – no matter where they are seated –
Stay home and watch the tube if you want to be protected from life…
Bye-Bye Baseball is right – or hello higher ticket prices to pay for the insurance that they won’t be able to afford as a result of the ruling
I hope the Superior reverses on appeal from the District – Judge Richard J. Knowles needs to get out more often…
And a JURY should decide an award? I’m sure they’ll sit back there in their little room and come up with a real fair price… like 10million or some rediculious number –
STOP THE MADNESS!
I personally think that the ball park has performed their duty of care — written and verbal warnings, and physical protection (nets) over the most dangerous areas — around home plate.
This standard of care was established back in the 1930’s or so when… someone sued a baseball team after being struck by a batted ball.
The judge in that case recognized that a baseball team has to balance the safety aspect with the fact that the spectators don’t want to watch the game through a friggin’ net.
For the location of the “picnic area,” these are relatively commonplace in minor league ball parks. Home run territory is the SAFEST place in the park to put them. a ball will land there maybe once every couple of games.
I don’t think the suit has a whole lot of merit. It’s an unfortunate accident, but baseball is inherently somewhat dangerous to watch.
I could see a poorly designed baseball field leaving the ballpark to lawsuits. Usually you’ll see that the food stands are pretty guarded from the ball. The ballpark knows you’ll have your back to the field and you could get hit. Other areas have high walls by the vendors. This isn’t coincidence. It’s planned out.
You shouldn’t put a picnic area where people will be sitting and eating in an area where flyballs could reasonably land. You wouldn’t put a food stand behind home plate without nets to protect the people because it would be unreasonably dangerous. It should be for the jury to decide whether this ballpark is designed unsafely.
Now suing the player, that’s a steaming pile of bull.
Just read the case and I see that summary judgment in favor of Matranga was affirmed. They could have put that in the article…