Re: O/T: H&B liable for player's death
I don't see how a warning label would make a difference, and thus I can't say that the jury made an informed legal decision. They didn't bother to see if all the legal requirements were met. They saw this permuted view of the world: a young man died; a corporation could be sued; corporations always have lots of money and insurance; thus, $800K is worth a lot more to the plaintiffs than H&B.
As I take it, frik's logic is like this: baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs hard, so when they achieve this--but to a dangerous level--then the company should be responsible. I guess it'd be like saying that knives are designed to cut, but some knife is made so dangerously that it could cut a hand off in 2/5 of a second.
Most people don't buy this argument because most people recognize the inherant danger in knives (and baseball bats). The question for me would be whether the product is a latently dangerous item--that is, it appears to be like all other bats but somehow is much more dangerous. I doubt H&B's bat is of such danger that it could rise to that level.
If the plaintiffs are truly concerned with their cause, they will donate their money to charity.
I don't see how a warning label would make a difference, and thus I can't say that the jury made an informed legal decision. They didn't bother to see if all the legal requirements were met. They saw this permuted view of the world: a young man died; a corporation could be sued; corporations always have lots of money and insurance; thus, $800K is worth a lot more to the plaintiffs than H&B.
As I take it, frik's logic is like this: baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs hard, so when they achieve this--but to a dangerous level--then the company should be responsible. I guess it'd be like saying that knives are designed to cut, but some knife is made so dangerously that it could cut a hand off in 2/5 of a second.
Most people don't buy this argument because most people recognize the inherant danger in knives (and baseball bats). The question for me would be whether the product is a latently dangerous item--that is, it appears to be like all other bats but somehow is much more dangerous. I doubt H&B's bat is of such danger that it could rise to that level.
If the plaintiffs are truly concerned with their cause, they will donate their money to charity.
Comment