Family suing Easton for sons brain damage.

Super Mario · Oct 17, 2013

Stuff like this irritates the heck out of me.

A family suing an aluminum bat company because their son was struck by a line drive and received brain damage. They're suing Easton, stating that the bat is too dangerous, far more dangerous than a wooden bat.

Ugh. Ridiculous. This is like players suing the NFL due to concussions.

The PARENTS and the players ALL know the risks of their respective sports when stepping out on the field.

People trying to make a quick buck through frivolous lawsuits piss me off.

Yes, it's sad that the boy was hurt, but it's not the bats fault.

Next someone will be trying to sue a batter for striking an infielder with a line drive because somehow they showed intent.

Continual pussyfication of the world...........

This would be like a gymnast suing a balance beam maker because they botched a spot and put themselves in a wheelchair.

Loveland family sues baseball bat maker following accident - KFVS12 News & Weather Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, Poplar Bluff

MisterT · Oct 17, 2013

Sad new about the boy.

But...we sue the aluminum bat makers because they are too strong and we sue the wooden bat makers because they can shatter and hurt someone. The game won't be much fun without the bats.

Soon little leagues will make fielders wear batting helmets.

My son smashed his nose in LL when he missed a catch. We sued no one. We taught him to raise his glove higher. Ugh.

bradical · Oct 17, 2013

Isn't this Suing 101? You sue everyone and let the courts straighten it out?

UMich92 · Oct 17, 2013

bradical said:
Isn't this Suing 101? You sue everyone and let the courts straighten it out?

Starting with those with the deepest pockets, ie Easton.

elmalo · Oct 17, 2013

What about the company that made the ball?

A_Pharis · Oct 17, 2013

Inherent risk. Easton needs to say the damage is as a result of the impact of the ball, and that the force of the ball resulting from the hit would have been enough to do damage despite the material of the bat. I'd say that getting hit with the ball is an assumed inherent risk of the game.

nappyd · Oct 17, 2013

Didn't Easton or Louisville Slugger, maybe both, already backtrack on some of their bat designs over the past decade for having too lively of a core? It definitely happened in softball and led to people buying the older banned models and resurfacing to look like newer approved ones, but did anything like that happen with the baseball bats?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

rsmath · Oct 17, 2013

lawsuit probably won't fly. How do we know the kid didn't already have a preexisting condition!

AMAZIN HOF COLLECTOR · Oct 17, 2013

Smoke 2 packs a day, get cancer, sue the cigarette manufacturer. Sounds logical.....

DiebytheCubs · Oct 18, 2013

While this case in particular is ridiculous and most likely won't go anywhere, I don't agree with the comparisons to the NFL concussion issue and the cigarette companies. Those were companies intentionally misleading the public by withholding important information that directly affected their health.

This, not so much. I'm sure if you ask someone at Easton they will admit there is some danger to playing with an aluminum (or any kind of) bat. They're not really trying to hide anything.

BiggioBrooks755 · Oct 18, 2013

Bunch of sue happy idiots...Sad for the kid but cmon man....

bongo870 · Oct 18, 2013

I bet he corked the bat too. lol
but really ... Always blame someone and sue! I slid into 3rd and the player put his foot in the way and i had my foot go so far inside it hit the side of my leg. Tore me up so bad i was in a cast for almost 6 months wearing a brace for years. Sue? na....
Did you know there is a group of poeple trying to end all sports where kids can get hurt? They want to ban all football from all schools. And yes they are fighting that. i guess baseball is next. I feel bad for this kid beacuse it isnt him doing it but his parents..

smapdi · Oct 18, 2013

The difference between this and cigarettes is that tobacco companies swore up and down and proved through "science" that tobacco wasn't harmful at all. Even though people "knew" it was, cigarette makers defending themselves like it wasn't made them liable.

Obviously, this suit is an act of desperation and anger on the part of the family looking for someone to blame, but there really isn't any to be assigned. Elmalo is actually on to something. The ball is what actually did the damage, they should sue the ball company for making the ball too hard.

lisu · Oct 18, 2013

They should also sue the batter for hitting the ball so hard it hurt their son. Every kid signs a liability waiver, and so the leagues and parks can't be sued, so they go after Easton since they have the deepest pockets. How about they sue Little League Association too since they're the ones who gave the bat certification?

It's just so frivolous and ridiculous, and I feel bad for the kid. But so many people have been hurt in sports, and they just deal with the injuries because it's part of playing sports!

markakis8 · Oct 19, 2013

So who are they suing for their own brain damage?

brian26 · Oct 19, 2013

I don't think the suit is "frivolous". I guess we need to read the definition of what that word really means. I would imagine the parents of the brain-damaged child are 100% serious in what they are doing, and there could certainly be some basis behind the suit.

rsmath · Oct 19, 2013

brian26 said:
I don't think the suit is "frivolous". I guess we need to read the definition of what that word really means. I would imagine the parents of the brain-damaged child are 100% serious in what they are doing, and there could certainly be some basis behind the suit.

It might not be frivolous, but in a perfect world it should be impossible for the parents to win it unless there was baseline mental test of the kid done before the incident to prove the incident caused brain damage. How do we know the kid wasn't mentally deficient to start with if there is no baseline test to prove it?

In reality, the parents will win because Easton will find it easier/cheaper to settle instead of fight even with no evidence that the incident caused brain damage.

brian26 · Oct 19, 2013

rsmath said:
It might not be frivolous, but in a perfect world it should be impossible for the parents to win it unless there was baseline mental test of the kid done before the incident to prove the incident caused brain damage. How do we know the kid wasn't mentally deficient to start with if there is no baseline test to prove it?

In reality, the parents will win because Easton will find it easier/cheaper to settle instead of fight even with no evidence that the incident caused brain damage.

I'm just surprised at so many people throwing out the word "frivolous". Brain damage due to an injury is nothing frivolous. Spilling hot coffee on your foot in the McDonalds drive-thru is a frivolous.

bongo870 · Oct 20, 2013

rsmath said:
It might not be frivolous, but in a perfect world it should be impossible for the parents to win it unless there was baseline mental test of the kid done before the incident to prove the incident caused brain damage. How do we know the kid wasn't mentally deficient to start with if there is no baseline test to prove it?

In reality, the parents will win because Easton will find it easier/cheaper to settle instead of fight even with no evidence that the incident caused brain damage.

I really doubt they will settle. I cant see how in any way at all how it is there fault. Did Easton personally hit the kid in the head? They they make the bat a certain way to hope someone will get hurt? I see no negligence here on there behalf. A lawyer got there hands on it and is looking at the big bucks. Easton did nothing wrong and in any way were not negligent. The bat was not defective. The bat did not make contact with the child. Sorry. I think this lawsuit is a joke. I feel sorry for this child...

bongo870 · Oct 20, 2013

brian26 said:
I'm just surprised at so many people throwing out the word "frivolous". Brain damage due to an injury is nothing frivolous. Spilling hot coffee on your foot in the McDonalds drive-thru is a frivolous.

I think people are calling the law suit "frivolous" not the accident...what happened to that poor child was a accident..

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Family suing Easton for sons brain damage.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Log in