Thread: Domalewski family to receive $14.5M

What the defendants worried about was having the kid or his mother take the stand and starting the tear factory. I can just hear them say "My son will never get married. He'll never dance at the prom. He'll never know what it's like to (fill in the blank)..." and all the women on the jury will start crying and before you know it, they'll give this family the maximum possible.

So they decided to cut their losses and avoid the possible worst-case scenario. It's pretty startling when you consider $14.5 million is not a worst-case scenario.

I would have loved to be on that jury

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

The glaringly obvious question to me is why not sue the kid that hit the ball? If he had swung earlier or later...the pitcher wouldnt have been hit. Guns dont kill people...and neither do bats. It's the batters fault.

I coached baseball for about 10 years. These bats are works of science anymore. I dropped $200 on one for my oldest son and it easily produced 20-30 feet of extra distance on a solid hit. So pretty much any player whose parents could afford it...had one of these bats because they do give the hitter an advantage. The kids that couldnt afford it usually used the bats of the kids that could. Watch the LLWS and pay attention to the bats the kids use.

I remember coaching an all-star team and one of the kids had really good gap power but never hit a HR before. He shows up to a game in an all-star tourney with a new bat like these and his first at bat he hits one out. He ended the tournament with 3 homers.

My point is...I guarantee you these parents bought one of these bats for this kid. They knew the advantage it offered and they wanted their kid to have that same advantage...but once he was injured as a result, they changed their minds. It's bullshit.

From what I'm reading, the league required that the bad used met standards that the bat react as if it were a wooden bat. Thus, they had a "regulation" on the kind of bat used beacause of the stats that changed from 150 injuries per year, to just a few per year (a huge difference). So when the parents bought the bat, they bought it under the understanding that the bat met those standards, thus, waas perfectly legal and safe to use within their baseball league. Same goes for the kids parents that bout the bat, as you say they probably did.

As it turns out...the bat didn't fall into those standards. Either the bat manufacture sold it as if it were within legal limits, the store advertised it as being within legal limits, or the baseball league didn't regulate to be sure the bat fell within the legal limitations. Either way, a bat that shouldn't have been used in their league was used, and as a result....catastophe. COULD that have happened with a "wooden acting bat?" Sure. But then we are talking about the chances of injury being minimized as much as possible. Accidents happen, but when an accident "could" have been avoided by the use of the 'proper' equipment, then its negligence.

Compare it to a tool. Lets say a guy on a highrise is required to buy a harness latch that meets a certain standard. So the guy buys the latch under the pretense that the latch meets those standards. After all, it was either the manufacture that said it did, the store that he bought it said it did, or the foreman at the jobsight said his harness latch was fine. However, the harness latch breaks under normal working standards, and the guy falls to his death. Now if that latch were proper, he wouldn't have fallen. Is there someone to be at fault for that, or do we simply blame the worker for taking the labeling as accurate and putting his life on the line for using it?

If we would just go back to plastic bats and balls none of this would of happened. Where's Goodell when we need him?

I just spit out my coffee laughing at this story, the coffee burned my leg so Im suing Tim Hortons and the writer of this article.

Originally Posted by weazel

I just spit out my coffee laughing at this story, the coffee burned my leg so Im suing Tim Hortons and the writer of this article.

If you ask King, you might have a case if the coffee was made too hot.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

From what I'm reading, the league required that the bad used met standards that the bat react as if it were a wooden bat. Thus, they had a "regulation" on the kind of bat used beacause of the stats that changed from 150 injuries per year, to just a few per year (a huge difference). So when the parents bought the bat, they bought it under the understanding that the bat met those standards, thus, waas perfectly legal and safe to use within their baseball league. Same goes for the kids parents that bout the bat, as you say they probably did.

As it turns out...the bat didn't fall into those standards. Either the bat manufacture sold it as if it were within legal limits, the store advertised it as being within legal limits, or the baseball league didn't regulate to be sure the bat fell within the legal limitations. Either way, a bat that shouldn't have been used in their league was used, and as a result....catastophe. COULD that have happened with a "wooden acting bat?" Sure. But then we are talking about the chances of injury being minimized as much as possible. Accidents happen, but when an accident "could" have been avoided by the use of the 'proper' equipment, then its negligence.

Compare it to a tool. Lets say a guy on a highrise is required to buy a harness latch that meets a certain standard. So the guy buys the latch under the pretense that the latch meets those standards. After all, it was either the manufacture that said it did, the store that he bought it said it did, or the foreman at the jobsight said his harness latch was fine. However, the harness latch breaks under normal working standards, and the guy falls to his death. Now if that latch were proper, he wouldn't have fallen. Is there someone to be at fault for that, or do we simply blame the worker for taking the labeling as accurate and putting his life on the line for using it?

I guess that's the part I dont really get. The governing body is Little League Baseball. I know of no such requirements that say a bat has to react the same as a wooden bat. Aluminum and metal bats are made for a reason...advantage over a wooden bat. If they required something to be just like a woden bat...why not just require a wooden bat? Despite all that...watch the LLWS. These kids arent using bats that react like wood. So obviously, LLBB does not have such a requirement.

Now...if this is an independent league that makes their own rules, maybe that requirement can be made. If so, then the kid using the bat is at fault for breaking the rules.

I dont know. It's a joke to me. If those parents can honestly say that they would not have allowed their kid to play if they had known what using that bat could potentially do, then they have a point. But I HIGHLY doubt that would have been the case.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I guess that's the part I dont really get. The governing body is Little League Baseball. I know of no such requirements that say a bat has to react the same as a wooden bat. Aluminum and metal bats are made for a reason...advantage over a wooden bat. If they required something to be just like a woden bat...why not just require a wooden bat? Despite all that...watch the LLWS. These kids arent using bats that react like wood. So obviously, LLBB does not have such a requirement.

Now...if this is an independent league that makes their own rules, maybe that requirement can be made. If so, then the kid using the bat is at fault for breaking the rules.

I dont know. It's a joke to me. If those parents can honestly say that they would not have allowed their kid to play if they had known what using that bat could potentially do, then they have a point. But I HIGHLY doubt that would have been the case.

The article talked about the wooden bat 'reaction' minimum, and the stats of injuries. The reason why you would use an aluminum bat instead of a wooden bat, is for weight. The ball coming off the bat is the same as a wooden bat, but you are able to swing faster with the weight difference.

But you are right, the KID isn't at fault for using a bat that was breaking the rules....the kid (nor his family) was being sued. It came down to the fact that either the manufacture (which is my guess) labeled the bat as meeting these standards, the store at which it was sold labeled it as so without manufacture permission, or the league didn't govern the use of illegal bats properly. Which is why all three were labeled.

But it doesn't matter if they parents would have changed that decision or not. ONCE the rules were in place, and the "chances" of injury DUE to these factors were minimized after the concerns of injury BECAUSE of the bats were recognized...then simply "ignoring" those hazards is considered negligence. ESPECIALLY.... if the manufacture labeled the bat to fit within those standards, and it didn't. Then thats extremely negligent on the manufactures end. Just like the example I gave of the harness latch.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

The article talked about the wooden bat 'reaction' minimum, and the stats of injuries. The reason why you would use an aluminum bat instead of a wooden bat, is for weight. The ball coming off the bat is the same as a wooden bat, but you are able to swing faster with the weight difference.

But you are right, the KID isn't at fault for using a bat that was breaking the rules....the kid (nor his family) was being sued. It came down to the fact that either the manufacture (which is my guess) labeled the bat as meeting these standards, the store at which it was sold labeled it as so without manufacture permission, or the league didn't govern the use of illegal bats properly. Which is why all three were labeled.

But it doesn't matter if they parents would have changed that decision or not. ONCE the rules were in place, and the "chances" of injury DUE to these factors were minimized after the concerns of injury BECAUSE of the bats were recognized...then simply "ignoring" those hazards is considered negligence. ESPECIALLY.... if the manufacture labeled the bat to fit within those standards, and it didn't. Then thats extremely negligent on the manufactures end. Just like the example I gave of the harness latch.

Legally and technically...this is all true and fair. It's the human element that sickens me. Yeah, I know they want to be able to take care of their kid, but to lay the blame on the league, manufacturer or store because their kid was injured playing a kid's game is sad. Just my opinion.

I try to relate it to an incident involving my oldest son. When he was 14, he stayed the night at a friends house. They decided to meet up with another friend and go TPing people houses. Typical teenage crap. But, the mother of one of the boys decided to volunteer to drive them around while they did this. They go to a house and someone comes to the door. So all the kids run back to the car. before my son is completely in and has the door shut, the lady takes off and makes a turn and my son goes rolling out.

Along with serious road rash, he had a headache and dizziness. We took him to the ER to get checked out and it turned out he fractured his skull and had bleeding on the brain. After all the medical stuff was done, we had about 10k in medical bills AFTER the insurance paid it's part. So, we asked the mother for her auto insurance info and she denied fault. Eventually, we had to contact a lawyer so we could make the insurance claim. All of the kids and another parent testified to this lady's fault and we won the case. After it was all said and done, the bills were paid, the lawyer was paid and my son was awarded 75k.

Now...he doesnt need to get 75k when he turns 18 and he has no long lasting effects from the accident. So, we had it set up that the money go into a fund that he cannot touch until he is 35. After that he can transfer it to a 401k (if it's worth it), or whatever. Hopefully he'll have his life in order by then.

Anyway, to make the story relevant to this kid, I guess I could have sued the car manufacturer for not making a car that handled turns better...the city for not making streets that made it easier turn sharper...and so on and so on. At the end of the day, my son doesnt deserve this money because he was doing something stupid and was injured because someone did something dumber. That being said, I dont see how a kid deserves to be awarded 14 mil for playing a kids game.

The difference between the latch example and the bat example is that the bat would not be considered defective except for the circumstance that the bat hit a ball which had the extremely rare occasion to hit a pitcher in the chest in such a way as to stop his heart. In fact, if the batter *tried* to hit the pitcher in the chest, he probably couldn't do it which is why it is such a rare outcome that perhaps it should have been considered an "act of God" as opposed to a defective bat.

Did the parents not have to sign an insurance waiver in order for the son to play in this league indicating that baseball, like all sports, carries the threat of injury and that accidents, even death can result even if all safety equipment is properly used and all rules properly enforced?

The latch example carries the implication that the latch exists to prevent a fall and its failure resulted in a predictable fall (whether to ones death or not). The baseball bat doesn't carry the implication that a well-hit ball would predictably cripple a child. It's a random event.

Obviously, the defendants decided the risk was too great for them to be held at fault and a massive judgement would be awarded so they took the avenue they did but it could be argued that a random event happened that could have possibly still happened with a regulation bat. Who knows if the boy had been hit in the chest by a ball from a regulation bat whether his injuries would have been any different? But we hopefully won't ever have the answer to that question.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I guess that's the part I dont really get. The governing body is Little League Baseball. I know of no such requirements that say a bat has to react the same as a wooden bat. Aluminum and metal bats are made for a reason...advantage over a wooden bat. If they required something to be just like a woden bat...why not just require a wooden bat? Despite all that...watch the LLWS. These kids arent using bats that react like wood. So obviously, LLBB does not have such a requirement.

Now...if this is an independent league that makes their own rules, maybe that requirement can be made. If so, then the kid using the bat is at fault for breaking the rules.

I dont know. It's a joke to me. If those parents can honestly say that they would not have allowed their kid to play if they had known what using that bat could potentially do, then they have a point. But I HIGHLY doubt that would have been the case.

It's going to be a waiver frenzy after it's all said and done. A waiver to buy the bat, a waiver to buy the ball, etc.

Been around baseball as long as I can remember up through high school and my boys have as well and they're in HS now, stuff like this will happen.....it's unfortunate, but just like football has it's risks, there are risks when that ball leaves the bat or the pitchers hand. I guess if a kid misjudges a fly ball and the ball fractures his face, the parents will sue the glove/ball manufacturer.

I know there was a difference in how the ball flew off BESR bats compared to the BBCOR bats now. They made composite to have a feel like wood until they figured out the ball flys off faster from those composite bats.

No matter what they change to, these sue-happy ****s of the world will sue for anything.

I hate the sound metal bats make when they make contact with the ball.