|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE MLB playas these days !!!!
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Atlas4
I was watchin Court TV today... and lo and behold, some dumbass woman is sueing I believe the Red Sox because she got hit by a foul ball, and it did $100,000 worth of damage to her face. Do you believe that this woman has the right to live, or is she completely right and deserves $100MIL in damages? I'll try to find a link, if one exists.
Posted by: SKYHN
Those foul balls can be dangerous, but even so, thats the risk you run the moment you step in the ball park. They should pay for the medical bills, but thats it. No 'mental distress' bs money.
Posted by: 9:35
 Quote:
Originally posted by Atlas4
Do you believe that this woman has the right to live
|
sounds like you should take justice into your own hands
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Lots of people get hit by foul balls in "every" game, even with the "protection" that's in place ... it's something you should expect when you attend these ballgames ... she isn't entitled to "anything" IMHO ... it's a bad accident, but it was no one's fault, unless she can prove in court that the batter "intended" to swing the way he did so that the ball will hit her in the back... if she should be suing anyone, it should be the ballpark... money monger...
I guess these ballparks should start having idiot signs at the ticket booths saying "Warning: This is an open air stadium. Balls go up, balls come down. Balls are fast. Balls can hurt. Enter if you have the balls."
Posted by: elhior_manwe
remember the little girl that got killed by the hockey puck? just devils advocate here but do really think baseball or hockey have made it clear that there are grave dangers when attending? i think the litigous(sp?) society we live in is way over board. but i can't recall any warnings, except maybe some legalise on the backs of tickets.
Posted by: Blackknight
Screw warnings. That's BS. Learn how to move out of the freggin' way. She should only get a ticket refund and a free box of popcorn.
Posted by: Atlas4
In defense for the ballpark, they even had warning labels on her tickets. On CourtTV, when asked if she knew that a foul ball could hurt her, she said "she didn't even know that a foul ball could do this." The ball hit her at 90 MPH. This isn't a pop foul we're talking 'bout, but a line drive gone horribly awry. She had something like 1.97 seconds to react to it, and thats the whole argument about why she should win, the fact that since she obviously wasnt paying attention to her first baseball game she had ever gone to, she deserves the money. Not a bad idea, niner.
Posted by: laborat
Losers of all types always seem to find forums such as Court TV to vent their arguements that the world owes them something for acting stupidly in a dangerous situation.
The particular case cited above will probably prevail since lawyers are much better than baseball players about using the intent of law to their advantage. If things go the way most cases like this have gone recently she will get mega bucks in judgement only to get it dramatically reduced on appeal to a higher court.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by laborat
acting stupidly in a dangerous situation.
|
huh? how is getting hit by a foul ball acting stupidly. granted suing could be argued agaisnt, but getting hit by a foul is not her fault, and it is not the players fault nor should it be the ballparks fault in my opinion. though the NHL did consider it partly there fault for the death of the young girl that got hit by the hockey puck, and died, for not having enough protection around the ice. that is why you see the netting now. also after the '88 season of rally racing when 2 different incidences of cars crashing off the side of courses and killing people it was decided the cars were to powerful and drivers could not handle them.
it seems to me the pendulum has swung the other way so now when ever we see a lawsuit it is deemed unworthy of litigation, and the litigant is a greedy bastard. i don't agree that baseball is to blame for injuries sustained by foul balls. but i am not jugde or jury nor have I heard the exact arguements for an agaisnt, and I certainly wouldn't rely on court t.v. for them. if any of you have been to a baseball game then you have to realize that there really is no warnings to fans, or as the case may be non-fans who are attending there first game and are clueless to the danger as slight as it may be. there are many issues involved and they are not so easily catogorized as black and white, that may be why this post may seem to contridict itself on some level.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
huh? how is getting hit by a foul ball acting stupidly
|
IMO he was not referring to that specific case 
Posted by: AOTY2KB
Might as well declare FUN a federal felony.
Posted by: Gerbilo
I had to debate a similar topic in one of my classes a few years back, it was about NHL games and pucks going into the crowd. Honestly, I don't think the team or whatnot should be forced to pay anything. If a meteorite smacks someone in the head should they sue outer space, wtf, I know it would really suck if it happened to me, but, how can you blame the team? if you do that, why not sue the player, he hit the ball, oh wait, why not the pitcher for throwing it, oh wait, why not Rawlings for making a baseball... or how about the owners of Secratariet who sold their horse to the baseball factory!! hah wtf
I think that it would be a very nice, generous, and good for publicity for the team to cover the medical bills, but they shouldn't be forced to....
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by Gerbilo
If a meteorite smacks someone in the head should they sue outer space
|
nah, they'd probably sue the state where they got hit, for not getting out of the meteorite's trajectory...
The case where the little girl died because of the hockey puck and the team gave compensation is the extreme case of this. Not to sound insensitive, but if they strictly followed the letter of the law if a case arose from that, the girl's family would lose any lawsuit they would file (the only way they would win is if their lawyer was witty enough to conduct argumentum ad misericordiam to a broken-hearted panel of jurists - it's a dead little girl, after all, so sad, so tragic, the family MUST win the case, etc). The team didn't want bad publicity, or maybe they felt guilty for the girl's death and felt they should do something, or maybe it was good PR, I dunno.
Any sport can be a "grave danger" to anyone if a freak accident occurs. You could be watching a basketball game, and someone throws an errant pass from the backcourt, the ball bounces off the board, and hits you in the face - and it so happened that you were wearing eyeglasses that time, and it shattered/broke on impact, and drove the lens fragments deep into your eye. Boom! Lawsuit against the basketball team for blindness and emotional distress... and don't forget the eyeglass makers...
This is a lawsuit-happy country. It's a cottage industry. I think the only way to be totally safe when watching sports is to watch it on TV ...
... then again, lightning could hit your power lines, toppling it, hit your house on its way down, showering you with sparks, making your carpet and curtains catch on fire, and then you end up with third degree burns and a burned down home... guess you can sue the electric company, the state and your preferred deity for it... and don't forget the TV station, coz you can make the excuse that if you weren't watching it indoors, you wouldn't have been in the house when the accident happened...
Posted by: elhior_manwe
I am not so sure laggy, that hockey did it out of some comendible humanism. I am just not that much of an glass is half full kind of girl, more cynical here. I don't think they would have paid them anything if they didn't atleast think they had to, if they could have just exspressed public sympathy for such an "awful accident that know one could have forseen", as I would imagine someone would have said, they would have. Hockey changed after that installing the nets on either side of the ice so that a puck could not fly into the crowd. They seemed to feel without those nets there was an unexceptable risk invovled and you might as well or probably would stay home to watch the game if they did not. Baseball as well as any sport that could be dangerous close up is very reluctant to have clearer warnings or more obvious ones, they would not want to scare the fans, and admitting liability as hockey did will never happen while the woman is still walking. If somone such as a little girl or anyone else dies getting hit by a ball or bat (which seems like it is just a matter of time) I would wager baseball would extend the netting that surrounds the area behind home plate. I have always been a person that agrees that "at your own risk" should mean it. And we shouldn't get sued when you get hurt doing something "at your own risk ". I have been invovled in the ski industry my whole life and have watched as people have sued ski areas for getting hurt or a loved ones death. It drives me crazy, but the difference is every where ever you look there are huge signs listing the Skiiers code and the first thing on the code is "Skiing is inherently dangerous and can cause serious injury or death". I still think that the sports that can be dangerous to people watching do not make that clear to the spectators.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elhior_manwe
I still think that the sports that can be dangerous to people watching do not make that clear to the spectators.
|
The question is "how clear is clear enough?" They can put up as much signs as they want, but it's up to people to read it - unless all these venues force people to sign disclaimer documents before they can enter their establishments. That's the kind of world (or country) we're turning into...
Posted by: Gerbilo
Purchasing the ticket should be the equivalent of signing a consent form... say you buy it from a scalper, then the team doesn't have to do anything anyway since you didn't legally have the ticket and they aren't legally responsible
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
That's the kind of world (or country) we're turning into...
|
yes i agree. we should follow the rest of the worlds lead when it comes to lawsuits, but I think we have already gone to far. I have rethought what I have posted, looking at a couple articles on the matter, and have decided I am leaning closer to the view that this particle lawsuit should be dismmissed. I also have changed my position and agree with most of you. We live in a society that seems to feel someone else is always responsible for whatever goes wrong in our induvidual lives, and no one seems to take resposibility for there own actions or inactions. You could make the argument that anyone attending a baseball game is reponsible to find out if there are any dangers sitting along the first or third baselines or whether a hockey puck generally can come out of a rink at high speeds and whether or not said hockey puck is hard. Most of these things are rather obvious, I think that is what most of you are saying and if we allow these lawsuits to happen we will no longer be allowed to sit along the first or third baselines...etc.
|
|
|
|
|
